House of Commons - Marine protected areas - Environmental Audit Committee

Marine protected areas - Environmental Audit Committee Contents

3 Managing Marine Conservation Zones

35. Designating MCZs is an important contribution to conservation, but the benefits it will bring will be limited unless they are also effectively managed. The Marine Biological Association told us that "the issue of determining management is vital as it relates to the fundamental issue of what we mean by a 'protected site'."[92] Without enforcement, the National Oceanography Centre told us, MCZs are likely to be "ineffective".[93] Oil and Gas UK warned that:

The Minister explained that one of the reasons for designating MCZs in tranches, rather than in one go, was to ensure that appropriate management measures were in place:

36. There was a widespread view that the Government had not yet provided enough information about MCZ management measures. The North Sea Marine Cluster noted that a local plan for an MCZ "does not have to be a long, complicated document but it should set out what the aims are, what the conservation objectives are, how that site is going to be managed, who is going to be responsible for what, what happens if things do not go to plan, where the money is coming from and so on, so everybody is clear about what is going to happen".[96] The Crown Estate noted that the equivalent Scottish consultation set out management options for that country's Marine Protected Areas.[97]

37. Witnesses from all sides called for the UK Government to move more quickly to provide more management details, both for the existing 27 sites and for the subsequent tranches. The consultation on the first tranche of MCZs in 2013 was undertaken "without the benefit of knowing the management measures that will be attached to individual MCZs" and, Subsea Cables UK told us, "there is still uncertainty about this".[98] The Royal Yachting Association gave us an example of how lack of information left it unsure about whether the MCZs would be helpful to its members:

38. RSPB believed such uncertainty could undermine confidence in the MCZ designation process. They found it "very disappointing" that a lot of the recreational sectors "were very lukewarm about these sites because they were not sure what it would mean for them".[100] The Marine Biological Association thought that a lack of information from Government on MCZ management measures "allows interest groups to quote statistics and draw inferences without actual information, which is not good in the long run for a stakeholder led process".[101] Wildlife and Countryside Link made similar points.[102] In words that echoed the comments of the Science and Technology Committee in April 2013, the Crown Estate observed that "lack of clarity on the management measures for each of the MCZs/MPAs can contribute to uncertainty".[103]

39. We are disappointed that the Government has not set out the management and enforcement measures which will be applied to the Marine Conservation Zones. Part of the Government's rationale for its phased approach to developing the network of MCZs was to provide time to put management measures in place, but with the first tranche of MCZs now operational there is still no information available on how they will be managed or policed. The Government must immediately set out its strategy for managing the existing MCZs, and include site management details for the second tranche of MCZs at the start of their consultation process in early 2015.

Voluntary or regulated management?

40. The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is the Government's principal marine regulator for English waters, with "significant" conservation, marine planning and licensing responsibilities under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.[104] Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities also have responsibilities for managing inshore waters (paragraph 3). The Act provided both types of organisation with enforcement powers for regulating activities in Marine Protected Areas,[105] and the MMO and Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities are currently considering what management approaches are required for each site to achieve the conservation objectives. The Government told us that where intelligence suggests non-compliance or a risk of non-compliance with a management measure, the MCZ would be "subject to enhanced scrutiny using available surface and remote surveillance assets. This may include Navy fisheries protection vessel presence, aerial surveillance or joint operations with other UK agencies."[106] Other public authorities also have protection duties, including the Environment Agency (for coastal and estuarine management) and the Department for Energy and Climate Change (for oil and gas licensing).[107]

41. These diverse and overlapping responsibilities make planning for enforcement more challenging, as we discuss below. Voluntary bodies are also potentially part of the spectrum of organisations with a role in the management of MCZs. Their involvement, favoured by several of our witnesses, raises the issue of the scope for using voluntary management arrangements in the MCZs. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations believed that such voluntary approaches:

108

The British Ports Association noted that some "voluntary MCZs" had been in operation for ten years, and "although these would not necessarily be compliant with the legislation, these could be used as the basis for future management and we would hope that in such circumstances only a light touch is needed".[109] The Institute of Fisheries Management highlighted the example of "a voluntary trawling ban above Gravesend [which] was agreed upon between the Environment Agency (then the local sea fisheries power) and 50 local fishermen, in 1998".[110]

42. The Blue Marine Foundation described its project in Lyme Bay, a European marine protection site. The project showed that "regulation on its own does not make for a successful marine protected area, … [and] co-management on the ground can achieve an even better result".[111] In Lyme Bay, the protected area is still fished, but:

112

The Foundation raised the prospect of a certification scheme for seafood caught from such sites, with catches marketed as coming from a sustainable source.[113] The Marine Conservation Society highlighted how new technology could help with compliance and enforcement:

114

43. Wildlife and Countryside Link emphasised the value of collaboration on MCZ management: "When it comes to managing Marine Conservation Zones, we need fishermen and other industry to be part of the process, because they are the eyes and the ears at sea."[115] However, they also "strongly endorsed the need for statutory underpinning to management mechanisms", because they had "serious concerns" about the efficacy and value for money of purely voluntary management measures.[116] Link wanted the Government to consider methods such as the byelaws that are being brought in to manage European Marine Sites. The Marine Biological Association believed that "Gentleman's agreements are unlikely to work but may be seen as a necessary compromise, at least at first."[117]

44. The management of Marine Conservation Zones needs an underpinning of enforceable statutory regulation. But compliance with the protections planned for the MCZs is likely to be greater where voluntary agreements have also been introduced. Many organisations have been involved in marine environmental protection, and have built up expertise and commitment that regulators should not overlook. When the Government and regulators determine the management arrangements for existing and future MCZs (paragraph 39), they should seek to facilitate voluntary agreements where these would not undermine or weaken the particular MCZ's objectives, while making it clear that they will use statutory enforcement where and when necessary.

Strategy and co-ordination

45. The uncertainty about the management of the MCZs and about the appropriate scope for a voluntary sector role are reflected in a similar picture of uncertainty and overlapping responsibilities for planning. The North Sea Marine Cluster told us that:

118

They called for "a more comprehensive Marine Protected Areas management strategy, of which individual management plans would form part", with "firm timelines" for developing a management plan for each MCZ.[119] The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations believed that had the MCZ network been identified through an effective marine planning system, it could have more effectively addressed the issue of the displacement of activity from protected zones to neighbouring sites.[120] In the Irish Sea, with its "multiple planning jurisdictions", a more coherent approach would be especially useful.[121]

46. Defra, Natural England, the MMO and the other regulators are "currently reviewing possible frameworks to facilitate improved processes for co-ordinating and reporting on actions required, and being implemented to achieve conservation objectives for Marine Protected Areas".[122] To help ensure that the features and sites at highest environmental risk are addressed first, Natural England and the MMO have developed a risk prioritisation matrix.[123] Defra pointed out that plans were "in the early stages of development, with an aim to introduce new arrangements later in 2014".[124] The North Sea Marine Cluster believed that central co-ordination of MCZs—by the MMO acting as "lead authority"—is required because of the number of bodies involved, the complexity of responsibilities, and the need to share best practice to ensure conservation outcomes are met.[125] George Eustice told us that, rather than giving rise to a new body, this was likely to result in "some kind of memorandum of understanding to make things work".[126]

47. The MMO is responsible for preparing marine plans for English inshore and offshore waters in accordance with the Marine Policy Statement.[127] The Chief Executive of the MMO described in March 2014 his work in producing management plans for the MCZs and other protected areas:

128

And he expressed confidence that the MCZ plans were on schedule:

129

48. Because marine nature conservation policy is devolved, part of Defra's planning challenge is having to co-ordinate with the work of the devolved administrations. Although each Administration is following the 'OSPAR principles' for designing MPA networks,[130] "each has interpreted these differently and is taking a different approach to identifying marine protected areas under national legislation".[131] There are MCZs for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but nature conservation Marine Protected Areas for Scotland. Wildlife and Countryside Link emphasised the need for "strong co-ordination" to ensure that the combined UK network is ecologically coherent.[132] Professor Ian Boyd of Defra believed that the current arrangements would produce that co-ordination:

133

49. The European Commission is responsible for bringing Marine Protected Areas into force at the request of member states. Co-operation between the MMO and similar bodies from other EU countries is therefore necessary for managing MCZs more than 12 nautical miles offshore.[134] Where other EU states fish in Marine Protected Area waters beyond the six nautical mile limits:

135

Defra plans to submit details of management measures for existing offshore MCZ sites to the EU by the end of 2014-15, "with the aim of having the management measures in place as soon as possible thereafter".[136] The Minister felt that recent improvements in the governance of fisheries in the EU would facilitate the agreement of those MCZs that required European co-ordination:

137

50. With a range of organisations involved in marine protected areas and Marine Conservation Zones around the UK, a clear lead agency is needed to drive effective co-ordination in the areas for which Defra is responsible, reflecting a strategy for the development and management of MCZs. The Government and the Marine Management Organisation have failed to set out such a strategy or to explain in any detail the measures that will be taken to manage individual Zones. The first tranche of MCZs were designated in November 2013, but the MMO will only have 'control plans' in place for those it is responsible for in 2016.

51. The Government needs to move quickly to reassure key stakeholders that it has a credible strategy for management of the Marine Conservation Zones. Full management plans for all 27 existing MCZs should be published at the latest by November 2014—the first anniversary of their designation. Substantial draft management plans for each of the next tranche of MCZs should be part of the consultation on that tranche when it is launched in early 2015.

52. The Government should also identify a body with a clear lead role for strategy and co-ordination on the MCZs. The MMO might be given that role, but if so the Government will need to ensure that the organisation's plans and resources, which we discuss below, would allow it to discharge that responsibility effectively.

Funding for managing the MCZs

53. Some of our witnesses raised concerns about the financial burden of policing MCZs at a time of constrained budgets. The Marine Reserves Coalition worried that budget cuts at Defra would affect the level of funding for its agencies for the monitoring, management and enforcement of MCZs.[138] The North Sea Marine Cluster considered that "funding the identification, declaration and management of MPAs is always going to be a difficult issue, especially in the current economic climate".[139] The National Oceanography Centre told us that unless "the people that are going to be implementing the management measures, such as [Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities] and MMO, … have sustained resource, it is going to be very difficult for them to do that job effectively".[140] They highlighted the high cost of crewed enforcement vessels, but also the savings offered by new technologies for remote and unmanned monitoring.[141] The North Sea Marine Cluster urged the Government to provide "greater transparency about how competing needs will be reconciled", which they said should feature in a marine protected area strategic management plan.[142]

54. The MMO's work on MCZs coincides with a number of other challenges for the organisation, including dealing with the Landings Obligation under a reformed Common Fisheries Policy, and delivering Good Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in 2015. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations saw in a January 2014 MMO publication about marine nature conservation byelaws a suggestion that "stakeholder engagement [by the MMO] will be achieved potentially via website, social media and drop-in sessions", which it thought indicated that the Organisation had "insufficient resources to manage stakeholder engagement in a meaningful way".[143]

55. The North Sea Marine Cluster concluded that a "lack of published performance data makes it difficult to judge the impact of the sharp reduction in the MMO's budget for marine protection".[144] We questioned the MMO chief executive, James Cross, about his budget for MCZ work. He told us that such tasks had not been undertaken at the expense of other areas of the organisation's responsibilities. Over the four-year period from 2010, he said, the MMO's grant-in-aid will have been reduced from £32 million to £22 million.[145] The budget specifically for protecting the environment will have gone down from £13 million in 2012-13 to less than £8 million in 2015-16.[146] However the chief executive told us that:

147

After James Cross's oral evidence, our attention was drawn to the minutes of the MMO Board Meeting of 29 January 2014 (published in April 2014) in which he was quoted as saying:

148

56. George Eustice told us that he did not think that the demands of the MCZs would mean that the MMO would neglect other areas of work, partly because many of the MCZs were in inshore waters, on which the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities would take the lead.[149] The Minister told us that the Government had made available £3 million of "new burdens money" to help those Authorities.[150]

57. Like any organisation facing reducing budgets, the Marine Management Organisation is examining its priorities and working methods. With increased responsibilities over the next few years arising from the implementation and extension of the MCZ programme, however, there is a risk that this area of activity might be insufficiently addressed. With continuing uncertainty about how the MCZs will be managed (paragraph 39) and a lack of an overall strategy (paragraph 50), the MMO is currently unable to demonstrate that it will have the resources available to ensure marine protection in the MCZs.

58. In its response to this report, the Government should provide its assessment of the budget and resources that the Marine Management Organisation will make available to manage the MCZs, what level of efficiency improvements are implicit in any reduction in that budget or resources, and how such efficiencies will affect the level of MCZ management and enforcement that the MMO will be able to provide.

92 Marine Biological Association (MPA 0026), para 1 Back

93 National Oceanography Centre (MPA0020), para 6 Back

94 Oil and Gas UK (MPA0016), para 13 Back

95 Q120 Back

96 Q85 Back

97 The Crown Estate (MPA0013), para 3 Back

98 Subsea Cables UK (MPA0038), para 3 Back

99 Q82 Back

100 Q23 Back

101 Marine Biological Association (MPA 0026), para 9 Back

102 Wildlife and Countryside Link (MPA0011), para 2.1 Back

103 Crown Estate (MPA0013), p4 Back