Appendix 1—Government response
Introduction
1. The Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee's
report on marine protected areas focusses on marine conservation
zones (MCZs) which form part of the network of marine protected
areas (MPAs) we are putting in place to protect marine biodiversity
in waters around the UK. The other components of the network
are Special Areas of Conservation established under the EU Habitats
Directive[1], Special Protection
Areas for birds established under the EU Wild Birds Directive[2],
Sites of Special Scientific Interest notified under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)[3]
and sites designated under the Ramsar Wetland Convention[4].
The designation of the first tranche of 27 MCZs in November 2013
resulted in almost 25% of English inshore waters out to 12 nm
being within marine protected areas. With the recent designation
of Nature Conservation MPAs in Scotland (equivalent to MCZs) over
16% of UK waters are now within the over 500 MPAs thus exceeding
the global Aichi targets adopted under the Convention on Biological
Diversity[5].
2. Establishment of marine protected areas is a key
element of an ambitious programme to protect and enhance the marine
environment while supporting sustainable use of its resources
to achieve the Government's vision of 'clean, healthy, safe, productive
and biologically diverse oceans and seas'. Other elements include
management and regulation of economic activities which take place
in the marine environment, for example implementing the reforms
we secured to the Common Fisheries Policy to manage fish stocks
more sustainably and eliminate the waste of discarding dead fish.
The Government is also, for the first time, establishing marine
plans around our coast to help achieve efficient management of
competing uses of our seas while safeguarding the environment
and has implemented an improved system for marine licensing. Another
tool in achieving the Government's vision is specific protection
for important marine species, for example, cetaceans, seahorses
and some fish species. All of these initiatives contribute to
achieving good environmental status in our seas by 2020 as required
under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive[6].
Response to Recommendations
1. 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.
3. The Government implemented a stakeholder engagement
and communications plan as part of the process for deciding on
which of the 37 candidate sites for the second tranche should
be designated. The plan, which was discussed with stakeholders
at an event in February 2014 announcing the list of candidate
sites, includes
· a
series of meetings with key national stakeholder groups, for example,
the groups representing the major marine users and all the major
national conservation NGOs;
· a series
of local meetings with those with an interest in the candidate
sites.
4. These meetings were used to provide an update
on the MCZ designation process and gather information to update
the evidence base (ecological, economic and social) for each of
the sites. Stakeholders have welcomed the approach and provided
constructive input which will inform ministerial decisions on
which of the candidate sites to propose for designation.
5. Further stakeholder engagement is being planned
during the course of the designation process including during
the public consultation expected to start in early 2015.
6. For the first tranche of MCZs the Government provided
a simple factsheet for each site providing user-friendly non-technical
information about the site, the features for which it was designated
and information about likely management. These have been very
well-received. It is intended that these factsheets will be updated
as further management measures are implemented. Similar factsheets
will be provided for second tranche MCZs when these are designated.
2. The Government should seek to apply the lessons
from the consultation process for the first tranche of MCZs 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 frontload the selection of further MCZs so that
more fall in the second, rather than in the third, tranche of
designations. The Government's planned second tranche of 37 sites
is insufficient, and a significantly higher target should be set.
7. The Government is building on the consultation
process for the first tranche taking account of points raised
in consultation responses. For example, we have committed to
providing greater clarity about the impacts of MCZ designation
on users of sites proposed for designation. Regulators are responsible
for putting in place actual management measures on sites but Government
will provide information on uses which may be affected without
compromising the role of regulators. We have also implemented
a stakeholder engagement and communications plan as noted above.
8. The Government is committed to the environmental
protection of our seas and completing our contribution to a network
of marine protected areas. To ensure this is successful and affords
protection to representative and rare and vulnerable species and
habitats, it is vital that there is an adequate evidence base
to support designations. Designation of MCZs results in costs
going forwards for both industry and Government (in terms of implementing
management measures, monitoring and enforcement). It is therefore
important that designations are made on the basis of sound evidence
so that these sites provide environmental protection but do not
have an inappropriate impact on business and leisure users. Over
the last 4 years over £10m has been provided to support seabed
surveys and mapping of sites and up to a further £2m is expected
to be provided this financial year. Recognising the uncertainties
around the impacts of some activities in sites e.g. the impacts
of static fishing gear on reef features, Government has established
arrangements to prioritise gaps so that funding can be directed
at these.
9. Government recognises the tension between resolving
uncertainties and taking a precautionary approach to protecting
potentially threatened marine biodiversity. It is noteworthy
that some of the mapping carried out so far has indicated that
features thought to be present on sites were in fact absent and
vice versa. For example the 'Rock Unique' site off the north east
coast was considered by the Net Gain Regional MCZ Project to contain
a low energy circalittoral rock feature. A seabed survey of the
site was unable to find this feature outcropping within the site,
and the site, designated in the first tranche, has been renamed
'North East of Farnes Deep MCZ'. In these circumstances the best
available information would have resulted in incorrect designations
which could have negatively impacted on marine users and required
scarce Government resource to correct.
10. The Government does not accept the recommendation
to frontload the second tranche. A candidate list of 37 sites
for the second tranche of MCZs, from which the smaller shortlist
of sites proposed for designation will be selected, was announced
in February. The candidates for the second tranche were identified
taking account of their contributions to a network; the existence
of new evidence gathered since the regional MCZ projects made
their recommendations and a manageable workload for Natural England
and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (the Government's
Statutory Nature Conservation Advisers (SNCBs)) and regulators
recognising their other priorities and the current financial constraints.
11. Work on identifying which of the candidate sites
are suitable to propose for designation is well-advanced. Adding
further sites at this stage would result in a significant delay
to the public consultation on the second tranche planned to start
January 2015 and would be likely to prompt significant criticisms
about the lack of evidence for some of the sites and potential
increased costs for sea users.
3. 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.
5. 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.
12. Extensive arrangements have been in place for
MCZs since December 2012 for activities which require a marine
licence such as port developments and aggregate extraction. The
MMO considers whether an application has the ability to affect
an MCZ feature and to further or least hinder the conservation
objectives in its decision making. The MCZ assessment process
is now embedded in the marine licensing process and all sites
are assessed to permit new activities in line with legislative
requirements.
13. Regulators are considering whether management
measures are required to put additional controls on commercial
fishing and unlicensed activities (such as recreation) in the
27 MCZs designated in November 2013. A number of these sites
already have some protection from fishing activities through
existing legislation, for example, bottom trawling by vessels
over 15m is prohibited in most of the 0-6nm zone and all Inshore
Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) have restrictions
on size and scale of scallop dredging within their districts.
A number of MCZs also have more specific measures in place, examples
include, a byelaw banning bottom-towed gear will protect Ross
worm reef (Sabellaria spinulosa) in the Thanet MCZ and
a ban on nets will protect Smelt in the Tamar Estuary MCZ.
14. For commercial fishing and unlicensed activities,
appropriate management measures are being put in place using a
phased risk-based approach by relevant regulators (mainly Marine
Management Organisation and IFCAs). IFCAs have received New Burdens
funding of £3m per year for their new duties including work
on MCZs which has been extended to 2015-16. Plans for managing
MCZs are being integrated with the management of fishing activities
on European Marine Sites. The process for managing activities
in MCZs includes evidence gathering, risk assessment and appraisal
of options and engagement with interested parties such as the
fishing industry and conservation NGOs.
15. Management of commercial fishing activities in
sites in the 6-12nm area where other EU member states have historic
fishing rights and in sites in the 12-200nm area are subject to
the requirements of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy. This
requires discussion with relevant member states and ideally agreement
of joint proposals for management of sites to put to the Commission
which are then formally implemented in EU regulations. Discussions
with other member states with an interest in the first tranche
of MCZs have begun for a number of sites.
16. As noted above, the Government is planning to
provide clear information about likely management of Tranche 2
sites as part of the consultation package.
4. When the Government and regulators determine
the management arrangements for existing and future MCZs, 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.
17. The Government agrees that voluntary measures
should be considered as part of the suite of possible arrangements
for managing activities in sites in keeping with its commitments
to better regulation. The Government also recognises that compliance
is likely to be greater when users have participated in developing
the management approaches and are bought into these. Regulators
operate in accordance with the Better Regulation Principles which
include early consideration of voluntary measures. The MMO and
IFCAs are well-practised in engaging with stakeholders and considering
voluntary measures as part of their approach to furthering the
conservation objectives of MPAs. The Government expects this
approach to continue drawing on external expertise.
6. 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 would
allow it to discharge that responsibility effectively.
18. Defra has the lead role for strategy and co-ordination
on MCZs and carries this out in collaboration with Defra network
bodies and where appropriate, the Devolved Administrations. All
the work to deliver the English contribution to a well-managed
ecologically coherent network of MPAs is overseen by a project
board which includes representatives from Natural England, the
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, MMO and IFCAs to ensure that
plans are deliverable by all those involved. Working-level arrangements
include regular collaboration and joint- working between network
bodies including Defra where appropriate. This includes working
with marine planning colleagues in MMO to ensure marine plans
and MCZs work are integrated.
19. Defra also has the lead role in coordinating
the achievement of the UK contribution to the ecologically coherent
network. As nature conservation powers are devolved we work closely
with the Devolved Administrations to achieve UK objectives. For
example all Administrations are working together to develop an
inventory of what is protected in current MPA designations which
will provide a better understanding of habitats and species protected
and enable any gaps to be identified.
20. With regard to management of sites, the Government,
with SNCBs and regulators, is currently considering what arrangements
are needed to ensure that MCZs and other types of MPAs are managed
transparently so that conservation objectives are achieved. This
consideration is looking at both national level coordination and
what might be needed at regional/local level. It will also consider
whether a lead organisation for coordination of and reporting
on management of MPAs is desirable and any cost implications.
7. 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.
21. The MMO is one of a number of relevant authorities
which will have responsibilities in managing MCZs and other types
of MPAs. Other authorities include the IFCAs which have responsibilities
for leading on the management of inshore fisheries within 6nm
from the coast where the majority of the first tranche of MCZs
lie. As noted above, Government has provided the IFCAs with additional
funding for their work on MCZs.
22. The MMO licenses and regulates marine activities
in the seas around England and Wales so that they are carried
out in a sustainable way. It has a range of responsibilities including:
· managing
and monitoring fishing fleet sizes and quotas for catches,
· ensuring
compliance with fisheries regulations, such as fishing vessel
licences, time at sea and quotas for fish and seafood,
· managing
funding programmes for fisheries activities,
· planning
and licensing for marine construction, deposits and dredging that
may have an environmental, economic or social impact,
· making
marine nature conservation byelaws, and
· producing
marine plans to include all marine activities,.
23. In relation to MCZs, the MMO provides:
· Pre-and
post-consultation evidence and advice on activities and on likely
management of potential sites to inform ministerial decisions
on which sites to designate and support the impact assessment.
· Regulating
activities on designated sites through consideration in planning
and licensing decisions on relevant marine activities and putting
in place management measures for unlicensed activities such as
fishing and recreation.
· Enforcement
of management measures on sites.
· Providing
support to the IFCAs on the development of any byelaws to control
inshore fishing activities which may affect MPAs.
· Providing
support to Defra on identifying and establishing MPA management
measures in offshore sites, undertaken through procedures contained
within the reformed Common Fisheries Policy.
24. MMO's budget for 2014-15 is £22.7m. It is
not possible to separate out MMO's work on MPAs, and specifically
on MCZs, as this work is fully integrated and delivered by teams
and staff throughout the MMO. This includes teams leading on marine
licensing, marine conservation and enforcement, marine planning
and on coastal operations as well as other supporting functions
such as legal, evidence gathering, information management and
statistical services. The MMO has assured Defra that MMO can
deliver its responsibilities, as outlined in its Corporate Plan,
within this budget.
25. Budgets for future years have not yet been confirmed
and will reflect continuing work on the first tranche of MCZs
as well as decisions, yet to be taken, on further designations.
1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm Back
2
Council Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the Conservation
of Wild Birds. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm Back
3
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Back
4
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-texts/main/ramsar/1-31-38_4000_0__
Back
5
Aichi Biodiversity Targets. http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/
By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial
and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas,
especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and
ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably
managed, ecologically representative and well- connected systems
of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation
measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes. Back
6
Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community
action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy
Framework Directive). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056 Back
| 
