Conclusions
1. 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 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. (Paragraph 24)
2. 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 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. (Paragraph 32)
3. 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. (Paragraph
33)
4. 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. (Paragraph 39)
5. 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. (Paragraph
44)
6. With
a range of organisations involved in marine protected areas and
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.
(Paragraph 50)
7. 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 and a lack of an overall strategy, the MMO is currently
unable to demonstrate that it will have the resources available
to ensure marine protection in the MCZs. (Paragraph 57)
| 
