6 Maritime spatial planning and integrated
coastal management
| (34769)
7510/13
COM(13) 133
| Draft Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management
|
| Legal base | Articles 43(2), 100((2), 192(1) and 194(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 30 September and 23 October 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 86-xxxix (2012-13), chapter 5 (24 April 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | See para 6.8 below
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
6.1 The Commission says that, although the maritime sectors can
contribute to the EU's objective of becoming a smart, sustainable
and inclusive economy by 2020, this has also put pressure on marine
and coastal resources, giving rise to the need for integrated
and coherent management. This led it to put forward, in March
2013, this draft Directive, which would require each Member State
to establish and implement a maritime spatial plan and an integrated
coastal management strategy, applying an eco-system based approach
to prevent conflicts between competing sectors.
6.2 The Commission said that planning details and
the determination of management objectives should be left to Member
States, but that every plan and strategy would at least need to
be mutually coordinated; to ensure effective trans-boundary cooperation
between Member States; to identify any trans-boundary effects
on neighbouring third countries, and to deal with these in cooperation
with those countries. It also set out the activities which Member
States' marine spatial plans and integrated coastal management
strategies would have to take into consideration.
6.3 As we noted in our Report of 24 April 2013, the
Government strongly supports maritime spatial planning, and has
drawn attention to the Marine Policy Statement of March 2011,
noting also that the UK already makes every effort to engage at
an early stage with neighbouring Member States. However, it believed
that the proposal in its current form would be likely to require
an amendment to current UK legislation, and that some of the provisions
appeared to go beyond what was required to ensure effective implementation.
The Government therefore intended to seek a number of amendments
reinforcing the underlying principle that it is for Member States
to decide priorities and how they deliver them, and deleting or
amending a provision which appeared to give the Commission unnecessarily
wide implementing powers.
6.4 The Government also pointed out that, although
the proposal requires plans and strategies to be in place within
36 months of the Directive coming into force, approaches within
the UK vary for a variety of reasons, and it would therefore be
seeking to extend this time limit. However, it added that, as
the UK has legislation in place and/or under consideration to
implement the proposal, it did not expect there to be any regulatory
or economic impact on business, and that the financial implications
were likely to be minimal (although, if plans and strategies had
to be implemented more quickly, additional resources might be
needed).
6.5 We commented that, insofar as the proposal would
seek to develop further an EU framework for these activities,
it clearly made sense, given also the need for cross-border cooperation,
though we went on to note the Government's concerns over the potential
conflict with the ability of Member States to determine their
own priorities and solutions. For that reason, we decided to hold
the document under scrutiny, pending further information. We also
said that we had considered the subsidiarity implications of the
proposal, and had concluded, overall, that it had addressed these
correctly, adding that, although individual elements, most notably
the timetable for Member States to submit plans and strategies,
may require changes to UK legislation, this appeared to us to
give rise to issues of proportionality, rather than subsidiarity.
Subsequent developments
6.6 We received a letter from the Government on 4
July 2013, indicating that several Member States shared the UK's
concerns, that it had been joined by a number of these in submitting
amendments, and that the Lithuanian Presidency had scheduled an
"ambitious" programme of meetings, in the hope of reaching
a general approach by December. This was followed by a letter
of 30 September 2013, saying that, although a recent Presidency
text had taken on board many of the UK's suggestions, it left
a number of concerns, particularly as regards integrated coastal
management, and the timing of the Directive's implementation.
The Government added that, whilst the UK and a few others were
pressing for integrated coastal management to be made voluntary,
there was only a fragile alliance, and that the UK risked being
marginalised if it took too hard a line. It therefore asked if
we would be prepared to give scrutiny clearance.
6.7 Our Chairman replied on 9 October, saying that,
although the Government had clearly worked hard to improve the
proposal, there appeared still to be a number of uncertainties,
and that it seemed there was far from being a done deal. In view
of this, he said that we would be reluctant to give clearance,
but that, if the Government concluded that it needed to support
the measure in the Council in order to avoid a worse outcome,
it would be open to it to do this, and to send a letter justifying
such an approach.
6.8 We have now received a further letter of 23 October
2013 from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Farming,
Food and Marine Environment (George Eustice), which says that
the main focus of discussion has been on integrated coastal management,
where the UK, along with a core group of Member States, has now
successfully negotiated changes which would allow Member States
to choose how to implement this, and that he believes this will
turn out to be the preferred option. He says that the latest proposal
represents the best deal for the UK, and understands that the
Presidency plans to take it to COREPER and the General Affairs
Council for a decision in November. He suggests that, if the UK
is unable to agree then what is on offer, there is a risk of ending
up with a less favourable proposal. In view of this, he expresses
the hope that scrutiny clearance can now be given.
Conclusion
6.9 As we have already observed, the underlying
rationale for this proposal appears to be sound, the main point
at issue being whether it is overly prescriptive. This is clearly
a judgement which the Government is best placed to make, and,
if its conclusion is that the text now on the table meets its
essential concerns, represents the best outcome achievable, and
risks being lost if the UK is unable to agree to it, we would
be content to clear the document. However, we would be glad if
the Minister could inform us of the eventual outcome.
|
