House of Commons - Marine protected areas - Environmental Audit Committee

Marine protected areas - Environmental Audit Committee Contents

2 Creating a network of Marine Protected Areas

Environmental factors

9. The Government's aim is to achieve "good environmental status in our seas by 2020, as required under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive".[24] All UK Administrations have committed themselves to contributing to an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas in the North East Atlantic. A number of our witnesses told us, however, that the MCZs so far designated do not represent a coherent network. Marinet Marine Community Network believed that the Government's refusal to accept the full "authoritatively agreed list" of 127 sites, and instead to "cherry pick just a few sites", undermined the whole process.[25] Other witnesses variously criticised the ambition implicit in the selections, the absence of 'reference areas' barring human activity, inadequate coverage of 'mobile species' and insufficient consideration of the seabed 'subsurface'.

10. The Marine Reserves Coalition, for example, was concerned about a lack of ambition in developing the network:

Wildlife and Countryside Link told us that:

The Marine Biological Association called for a precautionary approach to designation of protected sites to ensure that key features are not lost. The aim should be to "recover and restore habitats, not just maintain the status quo".[28]

11. Some witnesses said that the network of MCZs would only be complete if it included areas with high levels of protection from the human impacts of extraction and disturbance. Removing such impacts could allow a site to return to its 'reference condition'—the state that would exist if there were no human intervention. Of the 127 originally recommended MCZs, 65 contained 'reference areas', but represented less than 2% of the area of the recommended MCZs. None of the MCZs announced in November 2013 contained any reference areas, which the Marine Biological Association described as "a serious oversight".[29] There were very few areas, they told us, where scientists could investigate "fundamental marine processes and how these processes operate naturally" without the impact of humans, and to understand the "stability of habitats and species".[30] The Countryside Alliance, on the other hand, welcomed the Government's decision, taken on advice from the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies, not to proceed with reference areas in the first tranche of MCZs:

12. A number of witnesses urged that 'mobile species' be given specific protection in MCZs. Wildlife and Countryside Link were disappointed that species such as seabirds, cetaceans, basking sharks and fish had not been comprehensively covered by MCZs so far, and asserted that "where such species were found to be features of recommended MCZs, they were removed prior to the Tranche 1 consultation".[32] WWF wanted examples of all stages of lifecycles of mobile and migratory species to be encompassed by the network: "spawning and nursery grounds, foraging and rafting areas, and breeding/pupping/nesting areas".[33] Similar views were expressed by Whale and Dolphin Conservation[34] and Marinelife, who wanted White-beaked Dolphin to be a conservation feature of the second tranche of MCZs.[35]

13. George Eustice MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Marine Environment at Defra, told us that MCZs should protect permanent features, seabed features and habitats, and that "the way that the [Special Areas of Conservation] and the [Special Protected Areas] work, the European marine sites lend themselves better to protecting some of those mobile species".[36] Professor Ian Boyd, Chief Scientific Adviser at Defra, believed that:

We look at such monitoring and management issues in Part 3.

14. The Geological Society highlighted another item on the list of features that witnesses thought were insufficiently covered. They argued that too little attention had been paid to the seabed subsurface, which:

Social or economic factors

15. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 allows Ministers to take account of the economic or social consequences of designation in selecting MCZs.[39] In some cases, such factors could support the designation of a Zone if, for example, that provided opportunities for leisure businesses. The Government is funding projects on valuing improvements in ecosystem services in the marine environment and is "continually collating existing studies as they become available to improve the social and economic evidence base".[40] Professor Boyd noted the work of the Natural Capital Committee in trying to quantify such benefits, which we have examined in our recent report on Well-being.[41] "From a scientific perspective", he told us, "we are still at a relatively early stage of being able to properly cost those benefits in, but they almost certainly do exist".[42]

16. But taking account of the disparate and sometimes conflicting interests of the environment, business and leisure has presented challenges for the MCZ programme. The evidence base for economic or social considerations is still not well developed. Several of our witnesses highlighted a shortage of quantitative information on possible socio-economic benefits of MCZ designation. The Government acknowledged that:

17. The statutory provision which allows socio-economic considerations to be taken into account has made the process of designating MCZs a contested one. Wildlife and Countryside Link called for improvements to the Impact Assessments for site designations. The Assessment for the first tranche of sites calculated the costs for industry, they told us, but "made little attempt" to assess the benefits of protection, such as "recreation, sense of well-being, capture and storage of carbon, nutrient cycling, processing of wastes, and the fundamental role of a healthy ecosystem in producing seafood".[44]

18. On the other hand, a range of commercial interests explained how their operations might be affected by the establishment of MCZs. The British Ports Association, for example, were concerned that it might be possible to include new features for protection within an MCZ, or change a conservation objective from 'maintain' to 'recover', without consultation.[45] Some witnesses worried that an extended and uncertain MCZ process could blight economic development. The Port of Tilbury was concerned that there was:

The Major Ports Group told us that, with many possible future designations for previously recommendations MCZs, there was "a situation of considerable uncertainty for ports, particularly for those who are planning development".[47] The Port of London believed that "the evidence base for designations is unduly skewed towards locations of economic activity, as these marine environments are the best and most surveyed."[48] The Major Ports Group wanted the Government to review potential MCZ sites which might present a blight risk "and drop any proposed designations which would add relatively little net ecological benefit".[49]

19. Witnesses connected to leisure pursuits also had concerns. The Royal Yachting Association told us that "up to a point we are reasonably comfortable with the way that recreational boating interests were taken into account" in the first tranche of MCZs, but pointed out that "most of the areas that were of primary concern to recreational boaters were not included".[50] They warned that "Until we know what, if any, activities are going to be restricted or prohibited within that Zone it is quite difficult for us and our members to work out whether they are in favour or not".[51] The British Association for Shooting and Conservation also had concerns:

20. Some suggested that conflict between economic and environmental interests was not inevitable in the MCZ process. Marinet Marine Community Network argued for widespread adoption of the principle of "co-location", which it defined as the linking of geographical areas of commercial activity with conservation objectives.[53] They gave as an example the potential designation of shipping lanes, which "permit little other commercial activity for safety reasons", as MCZs.[54]

Consultation on MCZs

21. Considering together the environmental, business and leisure interests of MCZs in the regional project groups presented challenges. George Eustice acknowledged that in the project groups that considered the first tranche of MCZs there were some "divisions between different interest groups, … there was a period when I think there was quite a bit of tension between the NGOs on the one side and the fishing industry and the ports groups on the other".[55] But, he told us, when the designations were announced in November 2013 "there was an outbreak of consensus".[56]

22. That was not the impression many of our witnesses gave. The Marine Biological Association was dissatisfied with the consultation process, telling the Science and Technology Committee that scientists on the 'Finding Sanctuary' project group had been a "very, very small part of that whole process" and had had "some frustration with the fishing industry and other commercial sectors, that they more or less made up most of that stakeholder group".[57]

23. Others had the opposite concern; that the Government had not listened sufficiently to commercial users of the seas. The quality of Government engagement with industry during the first tranche of the MCZ process was criticised by an aggregates trade body, who told us that there had been no "significant engagement with industry" to determine what additional evidence might be available across potential sites once the regional project groups had made their recommendations.[58] They called on the Government to ensure that "future site selection and designation processes look to engage more closely with marine industry interests".[59] Similar comments were made by the Port of London Authority,[60] the Major Ports Group[61] and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.[62] The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations was concerned that the process of designating the MCZs was being rushed, with a timeframe which "constitutes a huge challenge that risks undermining an appropriate evidence approach, leading to blunt decisions and to unintended consequences that could undermine stakeholder buy-in to measures".[63] They identified a need to "engage stakeholders" on the next tranches of MCZs.[64]

24. Communicating the facts about Marine Conservation Zones to the general public, and engaging with all those with an interest in marine matters, should be an important part of the process of the programme's implementation. The recent Royal Mail initiative to issue stamps on 'unsustainable fish' demonstrates possible innovative approaches for awareness raising.[65] The evidence we have received suggests that the Government has not yet got its communications right, with a risk that there could continue to be resistance from those who might otherwise support the programme. The Government should put in place engagement and communications plans for the MCZ programme, before consulting on the next tranche of MCZs in 2015, to ensure that it is more widely understood and accepted.

Gathering the evidence

25. It is not clear whether the gaps in the consultation process and in the MCZs designated are a result of a process which has produced so far only a limited number of MCZs because of the way that evidence has been used to select them. Professor Ian Boyd of Defra outlined some of the difficulties caused by the uncertainty over scientific evidence:

The Government told us that it was "vital that there is an adequate evidence base for each individual site to ensure that we have successful, well-managed MCZs".[67] The Minister told us in March 2014 that:

The National Oceanography Centre highlighted a need for a "sufficiently robust scientific evidence base" for the designation of sites.[69] If one site were to be rejected on appeal because of a lack of evidence, they suggested that that would put "the whole network at risk of legal challenge, and [add] several years to the timescale for deployment".[70]

26. The Government told us that "the seabed and habitat data collection programmes for MCZs have significantly increased the proportion of English/UK seabed that has been mapped in detail".[71] Nevertheless, no comprehensive survey of the UK seafloor has been commissioned, and there are few bathymetric maps of the proposed MCZ areas showing the seafloor terrain.[72] The Institute of Fisheries Management believed that the poor quality of data made available during the first phase of the designation process risked undermining the credibility of MCZs:

They considered, for example, that there was "a significant level of mis-identification of fish samples for Water Framework Directive and related survey programmes".[74]

27. The North Sea Marine Cluster argued that the Government should "launch a comprehensive phased seabed mapping exercise to bridge the evidence gaps caused by the present sparse knowledge of marine habitats".[75] The Institute of Fisheries Management called for monitoring and interpretation of data to be conducted by "qualified individuals/organisations, following recognised quality standards and professional certification processes",[76] and wanted:

28. Others took a different view, believing that applying the precautionary principle to protection of the marine environment should entail designating MCZs on the "best available evidence" of environmental vulnerability. Wildlife and Countryside Link pointed to the practical difficulties of science at sea:

In March 2010 the Government had committed itself to making MCZ designations on the "best available evidence",[79] and its guidance in September 2010 stated that "lack of full scientific certainty should not be a reason for postponing proportionate decisions on site selection".[80] The regional project groups (paragraph 3) therefore used the "best available evidence" as the basis for selecting sites.[81] Subsequently, however, Government advisory bodies[82] indicated that whilst site recommendations would be based on the "best available" data, designations would require higher levels of evidence, and Ministers stated that MCZs would now require an "adequate" or "adequately robust" evidence base.[83]

29. The Marine Conservation Society believed that asking for such a standard of evidence set "an unnecessary and unrealistic goal, with limitless costs",[84] at a time when the declining condition of the seas made the "costs of inaction" too great.[85] The Marine Reserves Coalition warned against "any delay in the progression of [MPA] sites due to lack of data on extent and condition" which was "likely to have negative consequences for marine biodiversity".[86] The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, on the other hand, argued against the application of the 'best available evidence' test in designating MCZs. Without "appropriate levels of evidence", they told us, it would be impossible "to effectively inform likely management measures that should be applied at a site".[87]

30. In its April 2013 report on Marine Science, the Science and Technology Committee concluded that the Government "appears to have moved the goalposts" for evidence requirements during the selection process and recommended that the Government should adhere to a standard of 'best information currently available'.[88] The Government's response in June 2013 was that:

… there are instances when [best available evidence] is not sufficient to proceed with designation. The Committee notes the poor state of marine seabed mapping which led to the Regional MCZ Projects relying on modelled information about presence and/or extent of habitats and species leading to significant uncertainties around this information. Results from some of the seabed surveys have confirmed these uncertainties.

31. The Minister, George Eustice, told us in April 2014 that the decision to seek "robust" evidence was based on advice from the Science Advisory Panel of independent experts which had raised doubts about the strength of the evidence for some of the 127 sites originally recommended.[90] He told us "I would not say we have moved the goalposts in any way; it is just that we had a clearer evidence base having done that more methodical approach."[91]

32. The slow pace at which Marine Conservation Zones have so far been designated has been disappointing and suggests a lack of Government commitment to this initiative. The designation of 27 sites in 2013 and the prospect of only another 37 at the end of 2015 (paragraph 5) represent an unambitious programme, after a total of 127 sites had been recommended by experts and stakeholders. To be credible and attract support from all quarters, the Government needs to be able to demonstrate that the choice of sites strikes an appropriate balance between environmental, business and leisure interests. The selections so far, however, have been criticised from all sides. From an environmental protection perspective, they betray a lack of ambition and there are gaps in the level and types of biodiversity covered. But there are also concerns about potential harm to business and leisure activities.

33. It is difficult to assess whether such gaps and uncertainties will be a consistent feature of the programme, or whether a difficulty in collecting evidence of a standard that meets the Government's requirements has skewed and limited the initial selections. The Government, as the Science and Technology Committee has previously concluded, has unhelpfully moved the goalposts by increasing the standard of evidence it requires to designate MCZs.

34. The Government should seek to apply the lessons from the consultation process for the first tranche of MCZs (paragraphs 21-24) and bring forward and extend the mapping and research work needed to underpin the next rounds. That further research will help the Government demonstrate that it is taking on board any consequences for business and leisure users. Ultimately, however, it should follow a precautionary principle approach to designations to protect our threatened marine biodiversity, based, if need be, on the 'best available' data. To demonstrate to all sides that it is committed to the environmental protection of our seas, the Government should seek to front-load the selection of further MCZs so that more fall in the second, rather than third, tranche of designations. The Government's planned second tranche of 37 sites is insufficient, and a significantly higher target should be set.

24 Defra (MPA 0027), para 1 Back

25 Marinet Marine Community Network (MPA 0045) Back

26 Marine Reserves Coalition (MPA 0018), para 7 Back

27 Q29 Back

28 Marine Biological Association (MPA 0026), para 30 Back

29 Marine Biological Association (MPA 0026),para 24 Back

30 Ibid. Back

31 Countryside Alliance (MPA0032), para 9 Back

32 Wildlife and Countryside Link (MPA0011), para 6.2 Back

33 WWF-UK (MPA0017), para 4.3 Back

34 Whale and Dolphin Conservation (MPA0004) Back

35 MARINElife (MPA0035), para 5 Back