Governing the marine environment

Summary

The marine environment plays a critical role in regulating the Earth’s climate and as per the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, greenhouse gases are seen as a marine pollutant. Protecting the marine environment is essential, particularly as pressures from economic activities increase. UK waters are home to seals, dolphins, fish and many species and natural habitats. The UK Government has a vision for “clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas”. However, the Office for Environmental Protection is conducting an investigation into a suspected failure by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take the necessary measures to achieve Good Environmental Status of marine waters.

A more joined-up approach to marine governance, where stakeholders are engaged early on, is vital to ensure that the marine environment is safeguarded while supporting sustainable economic growth, including the expansion of offshore infrastructure. To achieve this, the Government must identify a department to take the lead on marine policy to ensure responsibility and accountability that delivers inclusive, transparent and effective decisions.

The Marine Policy Statement is outdated and no longer keeps pace with the changing marine environment, creating uncertainty for industry as new pressures and priorities emerge. To address this, the Government must urgently update the Statement to take account of new and evolving challenges and set out clearly its priorities for how marine space is used, whilst protecting nature. The objectives of the Marine Spatial Prioritisation Programme must similarly clarify how the Government intends to deliver spatial prioritisation within marine planning, and the sectors affected by changes to marine spatial use must be identified and supported.

We call on the Government to ban damaging practices, such as bottom trawling, dredging and mining for aggregates, on the seabed in offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). These practices undermine the very objectives that MPAs were established to address—the protection of the marine environment.

Monitoring and evaluation are critical to evaluate the effectiveness of marine protection measures. The Lyme Bay Marine Protected Area is the UK’s most comprehensively studied MPA, with 16 years of continuous ecological monitoring, and is central to this work. It is essential that funding is reinstated to allow the long-term monitoring at Lyme Bay to continue, preventing vital scientific research from being compromised by a gap in the data record. Additionally—based on the demonstrated benefits of Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) in enabling marine nature recovery—the network of HPMAs should be expanded, which would contribute to the Government’s target of protecting 30% of UK waters by 2030. Offshore developments should also be directed away from areas of key biological sensitivity and diversity, like Marine Protected Areas and Highly Protected Marine Areas, to ensure long-term protection and enable nature recovery.

The UK Government plays a vital role in international marine conservation and must demonstrate leadership through credible, coordinated, and measurable actions. It is crucial that the Government demonstrates its commitment to global marine conservation by ratifying the High Seas Treaty and enhancing support for marine conservation initiatives in its Overseas Territories. The Government should also make clear how its policies align with the advisory opinion issued by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on greenhouse gases as marine pollution.

1 Importance of the Marine Environment

1. The United Nations’ (UN) 14th Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) relates to the planet’s largest ecosystem, life below water. Oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface and provide food, oxygen and jobs.¹ The 14th SDG aims to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development”.² Oceans are generally considered to be the least understood, most biologically diverse, and most undervalued of all ecosystems.³

2. The UK’s marine environment plays a vital role in supporting both ecological and economic sustainability. Important marine habitats, such as reefs, seagrass beds and kelp forests, provide shelter and breeding grounds for a myriad of species, including dolphins, seabirds, and over 330 species of fish.⁴ These waters support industries like fishing and offshore wind, which produced 30% of the country’s total electricity in 2024.⁵

3. Due to the difficulties of quantifying some marine sectors, and separating them from terrestrial activities, the current size and structure of the marine economy is unknown.⁶ However, in one study it was estimated that key industries that form the marine economy, including offshore wind, oil and gas, fishing, shipping, leisure and recreation, defence, and research and development, accounted for 8.1% of UK Gross Value Added and 6.1% of output in 2014.⁷ A 2021 study by the World Wildlife Fund investigated the impact of global climate change on the oceans and the risks it posed to businesses that depend on oceans for goods and services and the communities that rely on oceans for their livelihoods and food. They analysed how industries both affect and rely on the oceans, and their research indicated that ongoing pressures on ocean health could pose significant global economic risks over the next 15 years.⁸

4. Beyond the economic risks from failing to maintain healthy and biodiverse oceans, the environmental consequences could be profound. Given the high demand for finite marine space across multiple marine industries, alongside the urgent need to protect marine ecosystems through measures like Marine Protected Areas, a strategic approach to marine governance is essential to effectively balance competing interests and protect the marine environment. Oceans face the threats of marine and nutrient pollution, resource depletion and climate change, all of which are caused primarily by human actions.⁹ These threats place further pressure on marine ecosystems while creating global socio-economic problems, including health, safety and financial risks.¹⁰ Without the ocean absorbing heat from the atmosphere, global temperatures would be around 30oC higher.¹¹ A 2024 poll showed that 63% of Britons do not believe the UK is doing enough to protect oceans.¹² Respondents were asked to choose two leading perceived threats and the most highly perceived threats to the ocean were pollution (62%), climate change (35%), the decline of ecosystems and habitats (28%) and over-fishing (26%).¹³ Protecting the marine environment is essential for the sustainable use of its resources and to prevent negative impacts like biodiversity loss and climate change from degrading the ecosystem.¹⁴

5. We have conducted this inquiry at a pivotal moment for marine governance, midway through the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development,¹⁵ and in the lead-up to the 2025 UN Ocean Conference, to assess how the UK Government is delivering on its targets for marine protection and fulfilling its obligations under international marine treaties.

About the report

6. The Committee received 61 pieces of written evidence and heard oral evidence from 24 witnesses across eight panels. We heard from marine conservationist groups, marine scientists, Government scientific advisers, legal experts, academics, industry representatives from the fishing industry, offshore renewable development, ports and marine aggregate sectors, community project leaders, seabed owners (The Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland), England’s marine regulator (Marine Management Organisation) and Ministers of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

7. The Committee also visited the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton,¹⁶ where we heard from marine scientists and oceanographers.

2 Marine Governance and Stakeholder Engagement

8. This chapter explores marine governance arrangements in the UK and the Government’s engagement with stakeholders in decision-making related to the marine environment. These overarching topics are foundational to the issues discussed later and are essential for the successful implementation of the recommendations presented in this report.

2.1 Domestic marine governance

9. The UK has a number of plans and commitments concerning both the management and protection of the marine environment, which will be explored further in this report.

10. Marine planning in England is within the remit of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), the Scottish Government’s Marine Directorate (Marine Scotland) and the Welsh Government’s Marine and Fisheries Division are responsible for marine planning in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales respectively. Whilst each organisation, directorate or department is responsible for the marine environment and marine planning, The Crown Estate¹⁷ and Crown Estate Scotland¹⁸ own and manage most of the UK’s seabed up to 12 nautical miles from shore and approximately half of the foreshore (the area of the shore between high and low waters). The Crown Estate is a public corporation, and its property, rights and interests belong ‘in right of the Crown’, which means that the Monarch owns the estate during their reign, but it is not their private property and all profits are paid into the government’s current account and can be used for any government spending.¹⁹

Box 1: Overview of Marine policy responsibilities across departments and other bodies

11. We heard that these governance arrangements, along with the division of marine policy responsibilities across multiple departments (Box 1), has led to a complex and fragmented system.^{29 30} Dr Gemma Harper, CEO at Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC),³¹ explained that it is “very difficult to articulate to anyone how the marine environment is governed, because it is so complex”.³² Multiple witnesses and organisations have shared their concerns with the Committee that the complex marine governance arrangements lead to issues of siloed thinking.³³ Alan Evans, Head of Marine Policy at National Oceanography Centre (NOC), praised the efforts of the international team at DEFRA and the legal team at the FCDO. However, he noted that the overall impression of the Government’s work in the marine sector is not as “cohesive or coordinated” as it could be.³⁴

12. Considering the multiple dependencies from different sectors on the marine environment highlighted in Chapter One, Mike Cohen, CEO at National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), emphasised that “somebody will have to take a decision” on the allocation of marine resources because “everybody cannot have everything”,³⁵ given finite marine space. A fragmented and siloed approach creates ambiguity about who is responsible for overseeing decisions regarding the marine environment and can create the risk that competing requirements from a broad range of sectors that use the marine space are not accounted for in decision-making.³⁶ For example, Benj Sykes, Vice President and UK Country Manager at Ørsted (a renewable energy developer) called for an integrated approach across Government and stated that it is important for the Government to address marine policy “as a single set of challenges rather than departmental ones”.³⁷ Therefore, in order to account for multiple competing priorities within the marine environment, a cross-cutting and coordinated approach to marine governance is required.

13. We asked DEFRA Minister, Emma Hardy MP about the concerns we heard throughout this inquiry that, in practice, co-ordination between departments across Government in governing the marine environment is not working effectively. Her response was that “they were right to make those criticisms in the past—absolutely. I hope they would say that they can see we are trying to take a different approach”.³⁸

14. We raised a recent consultation led by DESNZ on ‘Building the North Sea’s Energy Future’ as an example to examine the coordinated work of departments and public agencies in practice, and questioned the MMO and the DEFRA Minister, Emma Hardy MP, on whether they had engaged with DESNZ on the consultation. Michelle Willis, CEO at MMO, acknowledged they did not work as closely as they could have done.³⁹ The DEFRA Minister responded that she has conversations with DESNZ Minister, Michael Shanks MP, “about how we can ensure the best use of our seas”.⁴⁰ However, she was not able to provide a clear response about DEFRA’s involvement in the consultation.

15. The DESNZ consultation demonstrated a lack of coordination between departments when considering separate marine policy responsibilities within departments because the consultation had a narrow focus on transitioning from oil and gas to ‘clean energy’, a DESNZ responsibility, without demonstrating consideration of the environmental impact of offshore renewable energy developments, a responsibility of DEFRA.⁴¹ The lack of integrated thinking across government poses a risk that certain aspects of marine governance will be overlooked during decision-making. For instance, workstreams related to offshore development might neglect issues of marine conservation and nature restoration, while decisions on marine protection might not account for the impact on industries that depend on specific aspects of the marine environment for their livelihood. This leads to an unsustainable management of marine resources, which can result in cumulative harm from activities and compromise the long-term health, productivity, and resilience of the marine ecosystem.⁴²

2.2 Stakeholder engagement

18. Throughout this inquiry we have heard of the importance of engaging stakeholders, including local coastal communities, because of their dependence on the marine environment.⁴³ In 2022/23, the Scottish Government consulted on proposals to designate at least 10% of Scottish waters as Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMA) by 2026.⁴⁴ The proposal was rejected following the consultation and the Scottish Government said that the responses were “highly polarised” in nature.⁴⁵ Several witnesses pointed to the process of this consultation as a poor example of public and stakeholder engagement.⁴⁶ Jacques Villemot, Marine Rewilding Lead at Rewilding Britain, told us that it was a “very top down” approach that led to its rejection despite it being “something that could have had benefits—in fact, would have had—for the local population”.⁴⁷ The fishing sector, however, strongly opposed the proposal, stating that “it is not even certain that HPMAs will deliver the assumed benefits outlined in the consultation”.⁴⁸ The Northern Ireland Marine Task Force said that the HPMA consultation “became extremely politicised beyond the subject matter itself and we are still seeing tensions due to this”.⁴⁹ Though we acknowledge the example relates to the Scottish Government, it highlights why early and inclusive stakeholder engagement is critical and the implications of it not being done effectively.

19. We have heard limited details about the Government’s stakeholder engagement process beyond public consultation and it has been highlighted to us that “over-consultation”⁵⁰ and “poor consultation processes”⁵¹ have occurred across Government due to insufficient time, resources and appropriate expertise. Dr Pamela Buchan said that limited opportunities for affected communities to participate in decision-making are compounded by “cultural approaches to stakeholder engagement that are technocratic and lack meaning”.⁵² When we questioned DEFRA Minister, Emma Hardy MP, on engagement with stakeholders, she acknowledged the importance of “talking to the local community and engaging thoroughly with the local community” and the need for “community support” when it comes to decision making.⁵³ Whilst DEFRA recognises the importance of engaging with stakeholders there is little detail of stakeholder engagement processes that are up and running. The Wildlife Trusts, for example, referring to the Government’s Marine Spatial Prioritisation programme, which is discussed further in Chapter Three, said that “stakeholder engagement throughout this programme has been poor”.⁵⁴

20. However, the MMO’s more active approach in reaching out to stakeholders in different marine spatial planning areas has been pointed out to the Committee.⁵⁵ An example of the MMO’s active approach includes a project they undertook to enhance stakeholder engagement by conducting fieldwork, including interviews, surveys and workshops, relating to England’s 11 marine plan areas,⁵⁶ to gain insights from a sample of stakeholders of their awareness, understanding and experience of marine planning.⁵⁷ The MMO commissioned a report to analyse findings from their fieldwork that highlighted the importance of building reach and awareness with a wide set of appropriate stakeholders, sustaining and deepening relationships, improving transparency and feedback from engagement and ensuring better communication.⁵⁸ While the MMO is an executive non-departmental public body of DEFRA, there are still areas of marine policy and decision-making that fall outside the MMO’s remit where DEFRA itself needs to engage more effectively with stakeholders.⁵⁹ Stakeholder engagement in marine governance decisions in Norway and Canada have been highlighted as examples where good engagement has brought in important perspectives to marine decision-making, but also generated the buy-in necessary to identify major trade-offs between use of the marine environment and protection of the marine environment.⁶⁰ Roundtables, workshops, participatory mapping, and advisory councils are good stakeholder engagement tools for building trust, integrating local knowledge, and improving the effectiveness of marine governance.⁶¹

21. If stakeholder engagement is not done early-on, consistently and in an appropriate manner, there is a risk that the Government is taking decisions without considering or fully understanding the consequences of these decisions on stakeholders.⁶² This was reflected in the evidence we heard. For example, Mark Russell, Executive Director at British Marine Aggregate Producers Association (BMAPA),⁶³ Professor Heather Koldewey, Lead of Bertarelli Foundation’s Marine Science Programme at Zoological Society of London,⁶⁴ and Mike Cohen, CEO at NFFO,⁶⁵ called for transparency and honesty from the Government about “the knock-on implications and consequences”⁶⁶ to stakeholders of decisions being taken by Government, with regards to the marine environment. Professor Heather Koldewey highlighted that this is important because “the ocean is the biggest common resource, and yet a lot of the things that go on are not transparent”.⁶⁷ Mike Cohen urged for the opportunity for stakeholders to have their “priorities heard and acknowledged and for decision makers to be honest about the outcomes”.⁶⁸

3 Marine Planning

3.1 UK marine planning

25. Marine planning is a tier-based devolved responsibility, with UK Administrations sharing a common UK Marine Policy Statement (MPS) (Box 2) but separate National Marine Plans (Box 3). For example, Crown Estate Scotland emphasised the importance of devolved marine planning “for ensuring the nuances of the Scottish marine environment as well as coastal and island communities is consistent with wider Scottish Government policy objectives” but highlighted that “effective UK marine governance requires coordination between devolved and UK authorities”.⁶⁹

Box 2: UK Marine Policy Statement

26. In England, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is responsible for preparing marine plans, with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) having overall responsibility as the marine plan authority for England. In Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), the Scottish Government’s Marine Directorate and the Welsh Government are responsible for preparing marine plans respectively. The UK Government has acknowledged the “increasing level of demand on the marine environment, from creating space for nature to recover through to space for offshore wind and supporting fisheries”, often referred to as ‘spatial squeeze’.⁷⁰ A report commissioned by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), following a call for evidence exploring the drivers, pressures and data gaps affecting marine protection, identified commercial fishing, offshore energy production, climate change and pollution as the most common pressures.⁷¹ According to the MMO, the marine plans provide a policy framework which is used to help inform decision-making on what activities take place in the marine environment and how the environment is developed, protected and improved.⁷²

Box 3: Marine Plans

27. Multiple organisations, including the Seabed User and Development Group, British Marine Aggregates Producers Association, Plymouth Marine Laboratory (a marine research organisation), and Oceana UK (a marine conservation organisation) have criticised the incoherent nature of marine planning in England.⁸¹ For example, Oceana UK said “marine planning systems in the UK, particularly in England, are not well integrated, either with each other or with terrestrial planning systems, and offer little strategic direction to avoid and balance competing interests in marine space”.⁸² However, Michelle Willis, CEO at MMO, said “for marine management and marine plans, the success has been the MMO-implemented plans, which were the first plans in the world”.⁸³

28. Several witnesses stated that the UK MPS is out of date and therefore no longer relevant or able to provide clarity on the Government’s priorities within the marine environment, which will have changed since the statement was published in 2011 due to growing industries like offshore renewable energy, or provide insight to support marine planning decisions that are being made.⁸⁴ In December 2024, the Government launched a Clean Power 2030 action plan and acknowledged “the dangers of relying too much on oil and gas”.⁸⁵ However, Oceana UK highlighted that the current MPS still contains policies such as seeking to maximise oil and gas production.⁸⁶ This presents a contradiction between the Government’s stated ambition for “clean power” and the outdated guidance still embedded in the MPS.⁸⁷

29. Mark Simmonds, Director of Policy & External Affairs at the British Ports Association, told us that “the current system is not quite working for nature and it is not working for industry either”.⁸⁸ Commenting on the current marine policy in the UK, Professor Melanie Austen, Professor of Ocean and Society at University of Plymouth, emphasised the need to “build nature into everything we do in the marine environment from now”.⁸⁹ It is therefore critical to ensure the MPS reflects the current and future challenges that are emerging, which are exerting pressures on the marine environment, and ensure that marine nature is protected through sustainable management of marine space and its resources.

30. When we questioned DEFRA Minister, Emma Hardy MP, on whether the 2011 MPS was still relevant, she responded “part of the statement refers to energy policy, so I am conscious as the DEFRA Minister that I am not speaking about DESNZ policy because that would be inappropriate”.⁹⁰ When pressed further, DEFRA Minister, Emma Hardy MP, responded, “if it is related to energy policy, it would not be appropriate for me to speak about somebody else’s brief”.⁹¹ The MPS was developed by DEFRA and published jointly by all UK Administrations to be adopted by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.⁹² Therefore, the apparent lack of clarity on responsibility for the statement caused us concern and further reflects previous evidence about siloed approaches to marine policy, outlined in Chapter One.

31. However, the Director for Marine and Fisheries at DEFRA, Mike Rowe, was able to provide more clarity by stating that they will “be reviewing how the marine policy statement and marine plans are operating” as part of a Marine Spatial Prioritisation programme (MSPri).⁹³ The MSPri is discussed further in Section.Section 3.2. In supplementary written evidence, following the session, DEFRA Minister, Emma Hardy MP told us that “the Government has no set date on when the Marine Policy Statement (MPS) will be updated”.⁹⁴ The evidence that we have heard suggests that the statement should be reviewed urgently to provide an updated vision for the use of marine space, given competing social and economic pressures that need to be balanced against environmental protections, and ensure that industries that are reliant on the marine environment have more clarity about the future of their activities.

32. Marine planning plays a vital role in balancing the UK’s economic, environmental, and social marine policy objectives. As pressures on the marine environment continue to evolve, it is critical that the UK Marine Policy Statement addresses current and emerging challenges, allowing for adaptive and sustainable management, and that it is kept under regular review.

3.2 Marine spatial planning and prioritisation

35. We heard criticism of the marine planning system in the UK due to a lack of spatial prioritisation or strategic direction.⁹⁵ In particular, the need to integrate fisheries management into marine spatial planning was emphasised. For example, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, a wildlife charity, suggested coordinating National Marine Plans, Inshore Fisheries Management Plans, and marine spatial planning in order “to address issues such as gear conflict, bycatch, and overfishing”.⁹⁶ A number of witnesses told us that spatial planning is critical in supporting co-location, reducing conflict and managing the cumulative impact of activities, whilst embedding nature recovery principles into marine spatial prioritisation policy to direct activity away from the most environmentally sensitive and biologically diverse areas.^{97 98}

36. The Marine Spatial Prioritisation Programme (MSPri) is highlighted by the Government as a cross-government approach to marine planning “to optimise the use of the English sea and maximise colocation”.⁹⁹ The Government states that the programme “has developed key insights into the scale of the pressures on our marine environment” and that Ministers will come together in “early Spring [2025], to identify how we can best manage the demands on our marine environment while keeping nature at the heart of our plans”.¹⁰⁰ In January 2024, the then DEFRA Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and MP, Rebecca Pow, was asked about the progress of the MSPri and said: “DEFRA is working with key Government departments, organisations [ … ] and the marine sectors to improve our understanding of the different demands on the English seas”.¹⁰¹ The current Government’s written evidence stated the programme has “developed key insights into the scale of the pressures on our marine environment” and that work “to improve the ability of different sectors to co-locate is also progressing”.¹⁰² However, we are concerned that there has been limited indication of evolved progress or a clear outline of objectives and timeline for outputs of the MSPri.¹⁰³ For example, The Wildlife Trusts, said “efforts have been made by Defra through the Marine Spatial Prioritisation Programme over the past few years but unfortunately this work has yet to produce any outcomes”.¹⁰⁴ Despite frequent references to the MSPri in Government announcements, ministerial evidence and official publications, there is no single, publicly accessible document that clearly outlines the programme’s scope, objectives or timeline for delivery.¹⁰⁵ Based on the calls we have heard for more spatial planning within marine planning policy, we agree that the MSPri is the most suitable Government initiative to address concerns about the balance between environmental and economic objectives in a spatially explicit way. However, without a clear, and more detailed, outline of MSPri objectives and timeline for achieving them, we are worried that the programme will not effectively address the spatial challenges of marine planning.

39. With more integrated spatial planning and increased spatial prioritisation within marine planning policy, changes in the use of marine space will have direct consequences on specific sectors (e.g. oil and gas and fishing), which will require difficult decisions.¹⁰⁶ Building on our recommendation for transparency in decision-making and the acknowledgment of the implications for stakeholders, we recognise the importance of ensuring a just transition for affected sectors, ¹⁰⁷ as called for by many of the witnesses we heard from.¹⁰⁸ It is important that industries impacted by marine policy changes are supported to adapt and thrive in a changing marine environment, for example by enabling the fishing industry to transition to more sustainable fishing practices. On 19 May 2025, the Government launched a £360 million ‘Fishing & Coastal Growth Fund’,¹⁰⁹ which aims to support the next generation of fishers and revitalise coastal communities. While full details of the fund have not yet been published, we emphasise the need for it to support the transition to more sustainable fishing practices.¹¹⁰

4 Marine Protection and Recovery

4.1 State of the UK’s marine environment

43. The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 place an obligation on relevant public authorities to take measures to achieve or maintain Good Environmental Status (GES) for UK seas, and to do this through development and implementation of a UK marine strategy (UKMS) (Box 4) as set out in the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010.¹¹¹

Box 4: The UK Marine Strategy

44. The statutory deadline for GES to be achieved was 31 December 2020, and the Government had been expected to provide an updated report on the UK Marine Strategy by 20 December 2024. On 8 January 2025, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) announced an investigation into DEFRA in relation to a suspected failure to take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain GES of marine waters by the statutory deadline. The OEP is seeking to ensure that any failure “is addressed as soon as possible through the introduction and implementation of an evidenced, resourced and timebound delivery plan”.¹¹⁴ It is an ongoing investigation.

45. Out of 15 GES indicators, four have achieved GES, five have partially achieved GES and six have not achieved GES.¹¹⁵ This demonstrates the poor quality of protection and environmental status of UK’s marine environment we have also heard about in evidence; for example, Dr Gemma Harper, CEO at Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), noted that our seas are in “poor condition” due to a lack of enabling nature recovery.¹¹⁶ Dame Glenys Stacey, Chair of the OEP, expressed particular concern over the lack of marine protection and the UK’s ongoing failure to achieve GES, and that decisions for protecting the marine environment seem to take a considerable amount of time.¹¹⁷ This is especially problematic considering key targets, such as GES or the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR)¹¹⁸ marine assessments, are not being met.¹¹⁹ Delays in achieving these targets risk prolonging environmental degradation and pushing recovery timelines even further into the future. The failure to meet 11 out of 15 of the indicators measuring GES of UK seas highlights significant issues with the current approaches to marine nature protection and recovery.¹²⁰

4.2 Marine Protected Areas

46. At the 2022 Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) held in Montreal, Canada, the UK agreed, as part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF),¹²¹ to a target that at least 30% of the planet (land and sea) would be protected by 2030 (30by30).¹²² This built upon the UK Government’s previous commitment, made in September 2020, to protect 30% of UK land by 2030.¹²³ Countries are required to monitor and report their progress every five years.¹²⁴ Concerns were raised by Thomas Engelhard, a senior associate at PwC UK, about the “lack of accountability built into the framework”.¹²⁵ He stated that “there is a lack of quantifiable measures making it more difficult to hold countries and governments to account”.¹²⁶ DEFRA developed three criteria for land to contribute towards 30by30 in England, focussing on purpose, protection and management, but have not outlined such definitions for marine protection.¹²⁷ For the devolved nations, Dr Gemma Harper, CEO at JNCC, explained that the 30by30 target does not need to be met individually by each nation, as it is a target for the UK overall, because environmental policy is devolved and so “it must be responsive to the location”.¹²⁸ However, she said that it is important that areas “designated are being managed and monitored effectively, so that we know what works”.¹²⁹

47. In the UK, a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) have been designated with the intention of protecting “important marine habitats, ranging from reefs and seagrass beds to sandbanks and rocky shores, as well as a myriad of marine species including dolphins, seabirds, and fish” (Box 5).¹³⁰ Currently, 885,000 square kilometres of UK waters (47% of inshore and 36% of offshore waters)¹³¹ are designated as MPAs to “protect habitats, species and processes essential for healthy, functioning marine ecosystems”.¹³²

Box 5: UK Marine Protected Areas

48. A feature-based approach is taken for the protection of MPAs, meaning that the conservation objectives of MPAs are either to maintain features in a ‘favourable condition’ or to recover features to a ‘favourable condition’, where each feature has defined attributes (such as extent, distribution, structure, function and supporting processes, such as water quality) that are measured to determine their health or ‘favourability’.¹⁴⁰ The current Environmental Improvement Plan, published in 2023 (and presently under review), indicated an interim target of 48% of designated features in MPAs to be in favourable condition by 31 January 2028, with the remainder in recovery and a long-term target of 70% to be in favourable condition by 2042.¹⁴¹ DEFRA most recently assessed, based mostly on vulnerability assessments, that 44% of protected features in MPAs are in favourable condition.¹⁴² However, the feature-based approach has drawn criticism from academics and organisations who called for a whole-site approach, where the whole ecosystem within the bounds of the MPA is protected rather than individual features by prohibiting “extractive, destructive and depositional” activities and “allowing only non-damaging levels of other activities”,¹⁴³ to be adopted to protect wider ecosystems, and enable nature restoration and safe migration of species.¹⁴⁴

49. We have heard from witnesses that although a significant network of MPAs have been designated, the spatial coverage of 38% of UK waters does not reflect their effectiveness or meaningfully meet the 30by30 GBF target.¹⁴⁵ Dr Michaela Schratzberger, Science Director (Environment) at Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), highlighted that the ineffectiveness of the MPA network is impacting achieving GES of the marine environment, especially those indicators related to fishing and fish stocks, despite good directional trends for some features.¹⁴⁶ A report commissioned by the OEP, on drivers and pressures affecting the UK marine environment, highlighted that commercial fishing is one of the “most frequently cited stressors impacting the achievement of GES in the UK’s marine waters”.¹⁴⁷ The Common Understanding between the UK and the EU from 19 May 2025, states that the UK has agreed to maintain existing levels of EU access to its waters for an additional 12 years, until 30 June 2038.¹⁴⁸

50. The Global Ocean Alliance, which the UK chairs, is an alliance of 77 countries that champions ambitious ocean action such as reaching the 30by30 target within the GBF.¹⁴⁹ Therefore, the UK has a responsibility to advocate for ambitious ocean action and should demonstrate leadership in marine conservation domestically. With the United Nations Ocean Conference scheduled for June 2025,¹⁵⁰ there is a pressing need for the Government to reaffirm its commitment to ocean protection and ensure our global reputation is not compromised by being outpaced by other nations in delivering on international biodiversity targets.¹⁵¹

51. Due to the feature-based approach taken for the protection of MPAs, they are multi-use areas and therefore, allow certain activities that are considered environmentally damaging to take place within their boundaries, if they do not directly impact the protected features.¹⁵² Only three sites are classified as HPMAs “where all extractive activities, including fishing [e.g. bottom trawling], mineral extraction [e.g. dredging] and so on, are prohibited”.¹⁵³ HPMAs allow protection and full recovery of marine ecosystems to a more natural state to allow the ecosystems to survive by taking a whole-site approach to protection.¹⁵⁴

52. The allowance of certain fishing and mineral extraction practises such as bottom trawling and dredging in MPAs, excluding HPMAs where they are prohibited, has been criticised for damaging marine biodiversity because they disrupt the seabed and destroy habitats such as coral reefs, rock gardens and seagrass.¹⁵⁵ Oceana UK (a marine conservation organisation) claimed that in 2023, UK offshore MPAs were subjected to over 33,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling, and stated that just 10 non-UK fishing vessels “were responsible for over a quarter (27%) of the suspected bottom trawling identified by the analysis, demonstrating the intense nature of this damaging practice”.¹⁵⁶ Following the Common Understanding between the UK and EU, EU vessels will be able to maintain existing levels of access to UK waters for another 12 years.¹⁵⁷ The broadcaster, biologist and natural historian, Sir David Attenborough, has said that “it’s hard to imagine a more wasteful way to catch fish” than trawling and has criticised that it is still legal because “the idea of bulldozing a rainforest causes outrage, yet we do the same underwater every day”.¹⁵⁸ On 21 May 2025, the General Court of the European Union rejected a legal challenge brought by a German fishing association which sought to annul EU conservation measures introduced to protect MPAs in the North Sea from destructive fishing practices, such as bottom trawling. In doing so the Court recognised that the measures introduced were consistent with existing mechanisms in EU law, which are intended to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term.¹⁵⁹

53. Professor Melanie Austen, Professor of Ocean and Society at University of Plymouth, told us that two major pressures on the marine environment are trawling and dredging, and climate change, further corroborated by the OEP report on ‘Drivers and Pressures Affecting the UK Marine Environment’.¹⁶⁰ It’s estimated that UK seabed habitats contain 244 million tonnes of ‘blue carbon’, which is the term given to carbon stored in marine and coastal habitats such as seabed sediments, saltmarsh and seagrass beds.¹⁶¹ Therefore, there is major concern that allowing activities that lead to the degradation and destruction of marine habitats will lead to the release of carbon within them, thus allowing one pressure to exacerbate another.¹⁶²

54. Research has shown that larger and more offshore MPAs are more susceptible to bottom towed fishing, and those with high fishing intensities are often in unfavourable condition.¹⁶³ Campaigners have called for better protections within MPAs, by protecting the areas from trawling but allowing for other methods of fishing.¹⁶⁴ Jacques Villemot, Marine Rewilding Lead at Rewilding Britain, said that such actions would enable a huge range of benefits “including for the fishing industry and for our net zero targets, by creating healthy environments that capture carbon and help to safeguard against the impacts of climate change”.¹⁶⁵

55. Mike Cohen, CEO at National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), claimed that “trawl gear is designed to skim the seabed as lightly as possible, not dig into it” and “both the degree to which trawls disturb the sea bed and the resulting carbon released” are overestimated.¹⁶⁶ He also refuted the 33,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling statistic and stated that it considers “every single hour at which a fishing boat was at sea as if it were fishing”.¹⁶⁷ He added that the “areas in question as well are protected for seabirds and porpoises” and therefore not at the seabed.¹⁶⁸

56. Although sites may not be designated to protect a seabed (or benthic) feature,¹⁶⁹ Gareth Cunningham, Director of Conservation and Policy at Marine Conservation Society, questioned whether the practices of bottom towed fishing are “really compatible with the purpose of the [Marine Protected Area] site”.¹⁷⁰ Wildlife and Countryside Link, an environment and wildlife coalition in England, highlighted that the marine ecosystem is a whole, therefore, “features rely on ecological connectivity with the rest of the MPA and beyond”.¹⁷¹

4.2.1 Management of Marine Protected Areas

57. In England, the MMO is responsible for the management and enforcement of MPAs in England. Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs)¹⁷² manage fishing activities in inshore MPAs¹⁷³ in England. JNCC and Natural England work in collaboration with Cefas to monitor and assess the condition of MPAs in English waters. NatureScot,¹⁷⁴ Natural Resources Wales (NRW)¹⁷⁵ and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA)¹⁷⁶ oversee the management and monitoring of MPAs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively. They implement and enforce byelaws, and carry out research and monitoring to ensure that the conservation objectives of MPAs are met.¹⁷⁷

58. The Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009)¹⁷⁸ and Habitats Regulations,¹⁷⁹ key pieces of legislation for MPAs, contain derogation provisions that permit potentially damaging activities to occur at sites if the public benefit outweighs the environmental harm and if offsetting measures are taken. The MMO is responsible for managing fishing and non-licensable marine activities in these areas. The Fisheries Act 2020 granted the MMO powers to create byelaws for marine conservation, including in offshore waters.¹⁸⁰

Box 6: Fisheries Management Measures for Offshore Marine Protected Areas

59. Organisations, such as Marine Conservation Society and Seabed User and Development Group, called for greater management of MPAs. Mike Cohen, CEO at NFFO, emphasised the need for certainty of rules that are applied to them and ensuring that they “are based on evidence of benefit”.¹⁸³ He did, however, also stress that Government agencies should “take a sensible approach to encouragement and support rather than immediate enforcement”.¹⁸⁴

60. Stages 1 and 2 of the fisheries management for offshore MPAs have been implemented (Box 6). The MMO have collated and analysed the available evidence on the impacts of bottom towed fishing gear on MPA features for Stage 3, which is currently with the Government, and will soon be completing work for Stage 4.¹⁸⁵ Michelle Willis, CEO at MMO, told us that Stage 3 “will rebalance” the feature specific approach of some MPAs as they revisit some MPAs to make them “less feature specific and more encompassing”.¹⁸⁶ DEFRA Minister, Emma Hardy MP, told us that DEFRA are “committed to not having bottom trawling in areas that damage the MPAs, especially when they are attached to features that we are trying to protect” but did not give a timeline for acting on the evidence provided by the MMO for Stage 3.¹⁸⁷ In light of the Government’s previous commitment to implement necessary fisheries management measures by the end of 2024,¹⁸⁸ organisations, such as The Wildlife Trusts, Oceana UK, Blue Marine Foundation and Wildlife and Countryside Link, have urged for Stages 3 and 4 of the fisheries management measures for offshore Marine Protected Areas to be put in place without delay.¹⁸⁹

4.2.2 Monitoring of Marine Protected Areas

63. The importance of evidence-based decisions and long-term observation has been emphasised in this inquiry.¹⁹⁰ To evaluate the effectiveness of marine protection measures, monitoring and evaluation is critical.¹⁹¹ However, we heard concerns from multiple organisations that there is a lack of monitoring activities in the UK and therefore, persistent knowledge gaps.¹⁹² This presents a challenge for evaluating the effectiveness of management measures and determining whether they are enabling the UK to meet its national and international commitments.¹⁹³

64. An example of a long-term monitoring project that has successfully demonstrated the benefits of whole-site marine protection and effective management is Lyme Bay.¹⁹⁴ The Lyme Bay Marine Protected Area (MPA)¹⁹⁵ is the UK’s most comprehensively studied MPA, with 16 years of continuous ecological monitoring.¹⁹⁶ Since 2008, dredging for shellfish and bottom trawling has been prohibited in a designated 60 square mile area.¹⁹⁷ Other forms of fishing, including static gear, have been permitted to continue in the area and those fishing within the Lyme Bay Reserve voluntarily adhere to a Code of Conduct for sustainable fishing based on scientific evidence.¹⁹⁸ Additional support from Blue Marine Foundation¹⁹⁹ and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund²⁰⁰ provided equipment to ensure sustainably caught seafood could be chilled, which the Lyme Bay Fisheries and Conservation Reserve organisation said has “brought significant benefits to fishermen’s income and standard of living”.²⁰¹ Researchers at the University of Plymouth, who have led the monitoring work at Lyme Bay, found that the exclusion of bottom-towed fishing has led to significant habitat recovery, increased species richness, and improved ecosystem function, with reef species abundance increasing by 95%, and fish diversity and abundance now 400% higher compared to unprotected areas.²⁰²

65. Sustained investment is critical for these monitoring activities in order to collect evidence and support decision-making or evaluate decisions that have been made.²⁰³ The funding of marine science, in comparison to other science programmes, was highlighted as an example that funding for marine science is insufficient and mostly done through short-term “piecemeal” research projects despite long term observations being critical.²⁰⁴ For instance, in written evidence to this inquiry, researchers highlighted that despite Lyme Bay being “the UK’s most comprehensive long-term socioecological monitoring case study” since 2008, funding to monitor the site has not been made available in 2025.²⁰⁵ Previous support came primarily from DEFRA and “has been crucial in maintaining this dataset, yet no funding allocations have been made by the current government”.²⁰⁶ The Lyme Bay dataset has provided one of the few continuous records capable of informing adaptive management and policy. Without funding, there is a risk that the insights into ecological recovery and climate resilience will result in a gap in data collection, which could undermine “efforts to track biodiversity shifts, assess the impacts of climate change, and provide evidence for effective marine protection policies”.²⁰⁷ Without a robust baseline, which comes from long-term monitoring efforts, it is difficult to assess the impact of climate change and other pressures on MPAs and demonstrate the rate of nature recovery when pressures are removed.

4.2.3 Ecosystem protection

68. The need to consider the marine environment as an interconnected ecosystem has been emphasised to the Committee by numerous witnesses.²⁰⁸ For instance, Professor Heather Koldewey, Lead of Bertarelli Foundation’s Marine Science Programme at Zoological Society of London, told us that “one species may be born in one area, move to another, feed in another, and so on”.²⁰⁹ It is therefore important to ensure that marine protection happens at an ecosystem scale rather than through individual features.²¹⁰

69. The Benyon Review into HPMAs (Box 7) was published in 2019 and stated that by taking a whole-site approach to MPA designation, and protecting all habitats and species within its boundaries, “HPMAs allow marine ecosystems to recover to a mature state”.²¹¹ The Government held a consultation on five candidate HPMA sites in 2022, and gathered additional social, economic and ecological evidence to support the decision-making process. Three of the candidate sites were established as HPMAs: Allonby Bay (inshore),²¹² Dolphin Head (offshore)²¹³ and North-East of Farnes Deep (offshore).²¹⁴

Box 7: Recommendations of the Benyon Review into Highly Protected Marine Areas

70. The long-term monitoring of Lyme Bay has demonstrated the benefits of whole-site protection; reinforcing the case for fully protected areas where all extractive and damaging activities are prohibited, which is currently offered only in HPMAs.²¹⁵ This is an important approach for nature recovery, which needs to be expanded to offer more resilience in marine nature by reducing pressures through the designation and expansion of more HPMAs.²¹⁶ Professor Heather Koldewey, Lead of Bertarelli Foundation’s Marine Science Programme at Zoological Society of London, argued that we have evidence that HPMAs work and therefore, we should not need to prove it for every single site because scientific resources are better directed elsewhere.²¹⁷ Given the scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of HPMAs and the urgent need for marine ecosystem restoration and protection, expanding HPMAs in the UK’s domestic waters is essential to achieving the 30by30 targets.²¹⁸ HPMAs will also support the UK in meeting GES and contribute to the UK’s overall 25-year Environmental Improvement Plan.²¹⁹

4.2.4 Maintaining the status of Marine Protected Areas

73. In January 2025, the Government announced “up to £30 billion investment in homegrown clean power as permissions for new offshore wind projects are streamlined”.²²⁰ Whilst, the Government’s Clean Power Mission is vital for meeting net zero commitments, it should not come at the expense of marine nature. The Government is developing an Offshore Wind Environmental Improvement Package to help “offshore wind project applicants address unavoidable impacts to Marine Protected Areas (MPA) at a strategic level, facilitated through one or more Marine Recovery Funds (MRF)” (mentioned above).²²¹ The industry-funded MRF, outlined in the Energy Act 2023, is an optional route for offshore wind developers with the aim of supporting the delivery of strategic compensatory measures and will be launched by the end of 2025.²²² Developers pay into the fund, to discharge their compensation obligations, should appropriate measures be available to fulfil their mandatory requirement to compensate for negative effects that cannot be avoided.²²³

74. The MRF will help to alleviate delays for offshore development projects, which previously arose from insufficient environmental compensation being agreed, by enabling companies to contribute to larger marine nature projects and through agreed methods.²²⁴ Ørsted (a renewable energy developer), for example, said that the “MRF is vital for unlocking new marine developments and smoothing the pathway for projects under construction and in operation”.²²⁵ The Government stated that a potential measure is to “designate new Marine Protected Areas or extend Marine Protected Areas to compensate for the impact” to the seabed caused by offshore wind development infrastructure.²²⁶ Whilst the MRF might create greater certainty for offshore development, industry stakeholders emphasised the importance of accounting for displaced activities when allocating space for offshore renewable projects and the designation or expansion of MPAs. ²²⁷ For example, Mike Cohen, CEO at NFFO, said “it is hard enough to lose ground for the construction of offshore power, but then to be told that to compensate for the environmental damage done by that power we risk losing more fishing ground is pretty hard”²²⁸ and the British Marine Aggregate Producers Association said that whilst “displacement of activities is an inevitable consequence”, the “distribution of biological resource (fish), or distribution of geological resource (marine sand and gravel resources)” needs to be taken into account.²²⁹

75. DEFRA Minister, Emma Hardy MP told us: “This Government are utterly committed to 30 by 30. We are utterly committed to enforcing responsibilities under the Environment Act. This is not a regressive Government”. Therefore, it is important that the current progress to 30by30 and designation of MPAs and HPMAs are not compromised by the targets for offshore wind development, subsequent displacement of activities, or the designation and extension of MPAs to areas that are not of comparable quality in terms of biodiversity. The balance of climate action and nature conservation is critical.²³⁰

5 International Marine Treaties and Global Marine Protection

5.1 International treaties

80. The UK’s obligations under international marine treaties “are so widespread and diverse” that it relies on “close cooperation between relevant agencies” with “communication and effective coordination between different governments” to meet them.²³¹ There are numerous international treaties that touch on aspects of the marine environment. The ‘Critical Habitats and Biodiversity: Inventory, Thresholds and Governance’ report by Rogers et al. identified 23 international conventions and agreements that relate to protection of the marine environment and biodiversity in 2020.²³² These international treaties play roles in sustainably managing marine resources, habitat management and protection, minimising marine pollution and a number of other vital aspects to ensure the long-term health of the oceans.²³³

5.1.1 Implementation of treaties

81. The UK domestic legal system takes a dualist approach to international law. An international treaty binds the UK as a matter of international law, but will not become part of domestic law unless and until it has been incorporated by domestic legislation. Therefore, provisions of treaties that are not written into UK law are not usually recognised by UK courts.²³⁴ International treaties are negotiated and signed by the governments of the nations which are proposing to submit themselves to this form of international governance. Negotiations can often be a lengthy process and there can be a public consultation. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) outlines the responsibilities for ‘concluding’ (i.e. agreeing) treaties in their guidance.²³⁵ Once the finalised treaty has been signed by the Government it is under an obligation to refrain from acts that directly defeat the object and purpose of the treaty. The Government must then introduce and make any necessary domestic legislative changes to comply with the signed treaty.

5.1.2 The high seas

82. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which came into force in 1994, is one of the main international agreements on the oceans. The treaty is significant because when it was agreed, it enabled the ‘high seas’²³⁶ to be established as international waters in which countries can fish, navigate, and conduct research. UNCLOS does not, however, include specific protections for marine biodiversity.²³⁷

83. The Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement), also known as the ‘Global Oceans’, or ‘High Seas’, Treaty, aims to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, for the present and in the long term.²³⁸ The treaty was agreed by UN negotiators in March 2023 following more than 10 years of negotiations. The treaty addresses a previous issue that there was no prior legislative basis for MPAs to be established in the high seas and thus provides a mechanism to do so by allowing nations to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPA) with a majority vote of ratifying members if a consensus cannot be reached. The treaty also commits to sharing marine genetic resources to ensure equitable access and benefits from discoveries and environmental impact assessments of activities that have substantial impact on the global oceans and high seas.²³⁹ The treaty has been open for signatures from UN States and regional economic integration organisations since September 2023 and will be open until September 2025.²⁴⁰ There are currently 115 signatories for the treaty and 28 ratifiers. The UK signed the treaty in September 2023 but has not yet ratified it. The treaty is not yet in force.

84. Professor Heather Koldewey, Lead of Bertarelli Foundation’s Marine Science Programme at Zoological Society of London, told us that entire species, including fisheries, have moved and are moving to the high seas, driven by various threats.²⁴¹ We have heard urgent calls to the UK to ratify the treaty to protect the species that are increasingly migrating into the high seas.²⁴² For example, The Great Blue Ocean coalition, a coalition between the Marine Conservation Society, the Blue Marine Foundation, Greenpeace, the Pew Trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Zoological Society of London, said “the government must introduce the primary legislation necessary to ratify the agreement without delay, and use its diplomatic network to support other countries to also ratify swiftly”. The high seas cover more than half the ocean’s surface, therefore, it is critical to ensure there is a protection mechanism for areas where many species are migrating to, and particularly to achieve a more globally representative 30by30 target.²⁴³ However, Professor Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Chair of Public International Law at Queen Mary University of London, said she would “refrain from criticism, because the convention should be responsibly ratified when the domestic legislation is in place” stating that “it is not practical and it is irresponsible to ratify a convention without the underlying legislation”.²⁴⁴

85. In October 2023, the then FCDO Minister, Andrew Mitchell MP, stated that primary legislation would be required before the UK could ratify it. ²⁴⁵ We asked FCDO Minister, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, whether there were any outstanding legislative issues that were delaying the ratification of the treaty. Baroness Chapman responded by seeking to assure the Committee that the delay was “about timetabling” the legislation in Parliament and not an issue with the legislation itself.²⁴⁶

86. In April 2024, the International Development Committee recommended to the previous government that it “should prioritise the laying before Parliament of the primary legislation necessary for ratifying the Global Ocean [High Seas] Treaty before the next election”.²⁴⁷ Given the Government has not published a timeline for introducing the primary legislation for ratifying the treaty to Parliament, we are concerned the protection of the ocean is not demonstrably a priority for the Government.

5.1.3 Interpretation of treaties

89. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is an intergovernmental organisation created by a mandate of UNCLOS as a dispute resolution mechanism. In 2024, ITLOS issued an advisory opinion that impacts the way in which international treaties should be interpreted.²⁴⁸ The Tribunal clarified that compliance with obligations under the Paris Agreement on climate change are relevant but not sufficient to constitute compliance with UNCLOS obligations.²⁴⁹ The advisory opinion stated that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions constitute a pollutant to the marine environment for the purposes of the Convention, and highlights their severe and irreversible effects. In addition, the ruling states that States are required to take all necessary steps to prevent, reduce, and address marine pollution, using the best available science and to take a precautionary approach where there is scientific uncertainty. A State’s duty includes not only preventing and mitigating harm to marine nature but also its restoration. Professor Philippa Webb, Professor of Public International Law at University of Oxford, explained that States with obligations under UNCLOS would be expected to revise their actions to align with the Tribunal’s findings because elements of it are authoritative and binding. ²⁵⁰

90. Professor Philippa Webb, Professor of Public International Law at University of Oxford, said “I have not been able to identify any official statements by the UK on what it is doing with respect to this advisory opinion”. However, she did highlight that the UK “participated in both the written and the oral proceedings in the International Court of Justice”.²⁵¹

5.2 Overseas territories

93. The UK’s Overseas Territories (OTs) and Crown Dependencies have large marine areas, covering 6,805,586 square kilometres, making the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)²⁵² the fifth largest in the world, not including the British Antarctic Territory.²⁵³ 90% of the UK’s marine and terrestrial biodiversity is within the UK’s OTs, including coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass, but data on marine biodiversity are usually much sparser than those available for terrestrial biodiversity.²⁵⁴

94. The Blue Belt Programme is the Government’s marine conservation initiative for supporting UK OTs.²⁵⁵ The Programme intends to demonstrate the UK’s leading international role in tackling issues such as overfishing, species extinction and biodiversity loss. The programme is funded directly by the FCDO’s International Programme Fund and supported by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). The Blue Belt Programme seeks to protect four million square kilometres of marine environment, which is equivalent to one percent of the world’s ocean.²⁵⁶ The Darwin Plus fund,²⁵⁷ part of the Biodiversity Challenge Funds,²⁵⁸ offers funding for the natural environment and climate change in the UK OTs to deliver long-term strategic conservation. The funds have enabled OT communities to establish large MPAs, some fully protected, and contributed to the reduction of biodiversity loss and mangrove restoration.²⁵⁹

95. We have taken evidence, both in this inquiry and our inquiry on ‘The UK and the Antarctic Environment’, ²⁶⁰ on the success of the Blue Belt Programme and the need for long-term investment to sustain and support the initiatives that it funds. The Blue Belt programme have been vital for the UK in meeting international treaty obligations, whilst we heard that significant efforts are still required to fully implement them.²⁶¹ With an investment of £8m per year, the Blue Belt Programme is considered excellent value for money, costing approximately £2 per square kilometre of ocean protected.²⁶² The Blue Belt Programme and the Darwin Plus fund have been instrumental in marine protection and the Blue Belt Programme, in particular, has been regarded as “essential tools of FCDO diplomacy”, giving the UK a leading role in securing international marine protection.²⁶³

96. On 25 February 2025, the Government announced that Official Development Assistance (ODA) will be reduced from 0.5% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.3% of GNI. Given the success of programmes like the Blue Belt Programme and Biodiversity Challenge Funds, in delivering marine conservation globally, it is critical that efforts are not undermined through cuts in funding. It has been highlighted to us that funding is already weakened by remaining static and not increasing with inflation.²⁶⁴ Baroness Chapman told us that these programmes will need to be reviewed following the ODA cuts but sought to assure us that the Government intends “to continue to prioritise climate and biodiversity as part of that spending”.²⁶⁵

Conclusions and recommendations

Marine Governance and Stakeholder Engagement

1. Whilst balancing economic and environmental demands is important, it is critical to ensure a balance between climate action and nature recovery, particularly in enabling offshore renewable energy developments to meet net zero targets without compromising marine biodiversity. Achieving sustainable marine governance that ensures marine protection requires effective, cross-government coordination. Marine governance is inherently complex. However, it is essential that the Government adopts a joined-up approach to marine decision-making, ensuring coherence across departments and policies to deliver meaningful outcomes for the marine environment. We are deeply concerned that contrary to this, responsibilities are blurred, resulting in poor coordination and a lack of accountability. (Conclusion, Paragraph 16)

2. Given the lack of coordination, we recommend that one department must act as the lead authority for marine governance and the coordination of marine policy. This department should be responsible for engaging with other departments and bodies, including The Crown Estate, to ensure their needs are considered alongside competing demands. However, ultimate responsibility and accountability for determining how these priorities are balanced should rest with the lead department. This will enable the Government to address and support the diverse ambitions of various sectors while ensuring the protection of marine nature and sustainable use of the marine environment. The Government should confirm the lead department and identify its coordination responsibilities by January 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 17)

3. A more streamlined and transparent approach to marine governance, underpinned by effective stakeholder engagement, is essential for the Government to meet its marine protection commitments and to ensure a balanced approach to managing the economic, social, and environmental demands placed on the marine environment. (Conclusion, Paragraph 22)

4. Engaging stakeholders in a meaningful way is essential to ensure that decisions are inclusive, transparent, and responsive to both environmental and societal needs. For engagement to be effective, it must occur through appropriate forums, begin early in the decision-making process, and be maintained consistently throughout. Poor stakeholder engagement leads to the risk of the Government taking decisions without a full understanding of the consequences on them. It also contributes to low public awareness and may undermine support for policies that could otherwise deliver significant local and national benefits. While public bodies such as the Marine Management Organisation have taken steps to improve engagement, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must ensure that stakeholder engagement is strengthened across all areas of marine policy. (Conclusion, Paragraph 23)

5. We recommend that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) develops a comprehensive framework for engaging a diverse range of stakeholders, particularly coastal communities and underrepresented voices, early-on in marine decision-making and outline the responsible organisation for leading the engagement across areas of marine policy. This framework should identify a range of stakeholder engagement activities appropriate to the scale and impact of different decisions (e.g. roundtables, workshops, participatory mapping or advisory councils). The framework should also ensure that adequate resources and expertise are allocated to facilitate effective and inclusive stakeholder engagement, which will also help raise public awareness and understanding. Additionally, the Government should be transparent about decision-making processes and acknowledge the implications of these decisions for stakeholders. DEFRA should publish this framework by January 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 24)

Marine Planning

6. The current Marine Policy Statement is outdated, not fit for purpose and no longer reflects Government policy or pressures on the marine environment. It therefore must be updated at the earliest opportunity. (Conclusion, Paragraph 33)

7. We urge Ministers to issue a revised Marine Policy Statement no later than January 2026. The updated statement should reflect the current and evolving pressures on the marine environment, clearly outline the Government’s priorities for marine usage, and set out by which decisions on the balance between marine exploitation and marine protection will be made. (Recommendation, Paragraph 34)

8. Clear and strategic spatial planning direction from the Government is necessary to guide decision-making, minimise conflicts, and ensure that marine space is allocated in a way that supports both environmental recovery and sustainable economic development. The Government’s proposed Marine Spatial Prioritisation Programme has the potential to deliver this. However, the Committee is concerned that there is confusion or obfuscation about when and how this Programme will be delivered. (Conclusion, Paragraph 37)

9. We ask the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to clarify the objectives and planned timeline for outputs from the Marine Spatial Prioritisation Programme and explain how it contributes to the Department’s aims for “clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas”. We recommend that the programme sets out a framework for marine spatial planning that is adaptable to future pressures and follows the guidance set out in an updated Marine Policy Statement, which we have also recommended. This framework should direct activity toward areas of least environmental sensitivity, fully integrate the fisheries sector to avoid conflict and support co-location, and explicitly address the cumulative impacts of multiple marine uses. This will support the sustainable management of marine resources and reduce pressure on ecologically valuable areas. (Recommendation, Paragraph 38)

10. It is critical that the use of marine resources is sustainably governed through marine spatial planning and prioritisation. However, changes to the use of marine space will lead to direct consequences, including the displacement or reduction of activities, on certain marine industries and it is important that these affected industries are supported. (Conclusion, Paragraph 40)

11. We call on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to publish an assessment on the impact of changes in marine spatial use on specific sectors. Affected sectors and associated stakeholders should be central to the assessment and planning of the transition. (Recommendation, Paragraph 41)

12. The Government should publish a plan to secure a just transition for those affected by changes through targeted support, skills development, identification of long-term opportunities and associated funding. The support should reflect both traditional and emerging marine sectors, to ensure the retention of existing expertise while supporting the adoption of more sustainable practices within those industries. The plan for a just transition should be published in a report within six months of an updated Marine Policy Statement. (Recommendation, Paragraph 42)

Marine Protection and Recovery

13. We were concerned by Government failure to effectively manage gaps in the network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Deficient management and gaps in the network are allowing damaging activities to take place within MPA boundaries. (Conclusion, Paragraph 61)

14. We call on the Government to ban seabed damaging practices, such as bottom trawling, dredging and mining for aggregates, within offshore Marine Protected Area boundaries. (Recommendation, Paragraph 62)

15. Long-term data collection is critical to scientific analysis of the effectiveness of marine protection measures such as whole-site protections and their impact on ecosystem recovery. We are concerned that funding for Lyme Bay has stopped, and this will lead to a gap in long-term data collection and undermine marine conservation efforts. (Conclusion, Paragraph 66)

16. We recommend that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) reinstates funding to ensure the long-term data collection and monitoring at Lyme Bay is sustained to enable scientific analysis of the benefits of whole-site approaches for marine protection. We urge DEFRA to make this decision urgently to ensure the continuous data collection at this site is not compromised. (Recommendation, Paragraph 67)

17. Marine habitats are interconnected, and the health of one area impacts the entire ecosystem. Scientific research has provided evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of a whole-site approach to marine protection, which is enabled in Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMA). Therefore, it is critical for the Government to deliver whole-site marine protection in more marine areas by designating more HPMAs to facilitate effective marine conservation and enable faster recovery for habitats at risk. (Conclusion, Paragraph 71)

18. We urge the Government to expand the network of Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMA) to 10% of UK waters by 2030 to meet 30by30 targets, based on the evidence of their effectiveness in enabling marine nature recovery. The Marine Recovery Fund should be used to assist the establishment of new HPMAs. To ensure consistent progress across the UK, the Government should also consider using the UK Marine Policy Statement to set indicative targets or expectations for HPMA coverage within each devolved administration. This would help ensure that the 30by30 target is met through coordinated contributions from all nations. The plan for designating more HPMAs should be published in a report by January 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 72)

19. Nature recovery and restoration is a long-term process. It is of utmost importance that sites dedicated for marine protection maintain their status to allow habitats and ecosystems to recover and be effectively protected. Whilst the expansion of offshore renewable energy development, like offshore wind farms, are critical for net zero ambitions, the need to protect nature is also essential and should not be compromised by targets for renewable energy. (Conclusion, Paragraph 76)

20. We call on the Government to maintain the status of designated Marine Protected Areas and ensure the expansion of the MPA network to cover vulnerable sites of comparable biodiversity to maximise its effectiveness. (Recommendation, Paragraph 77)

21. We recommend the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) coordinate with The Crown Estate to ensure that offshore wind developments are developed away from the most sensitive and biologically diverse sites. This should be done by clearly setting out marine spatial areas (e.g. Marine Protected Areas and Highly Protected Marine Areas) where nature restoration is a priority, and habitats have long-term protection, so they are not compromised by future developments. (Recommendation, Paragraph 78)

22. We recommend that compensatory measures through the Marine Recovery Fund (MRF) should be directed to priority areas, particularly nature restoration initiatives, to ensure long-term nature recovery. (Recommendation, Paragraph 79)

International Marine Treaties and Global Marine Protection

23. As a result of climate change, species are increasingly migrating into the high seas and global oceans. The movement of marine species beyond national jurisdictions poses significant challenges to conservation and sustainable management efforts highlighting the need for effective governance and protection of these areas. We are disappointed that the Government has not found time in the legislative timetable to introduce primary legislation to ratify the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction—the Global Oceans, or High Seas, Treaty. (Conclusion, Paragraph 87)

24. We urge the Government to set a clear timeline for introducing the necessary primary legislation to ratify the Global Oceans / High Seas Treaty to send a clear signal of prioritising global marine protection. The timeline for ratifying this should be published within a month of this report and the treaty should be ratified no later than 20 September 2025, two years after the UK signed it. (Recommendation, Paragraph 88)

25. Elements of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas’ advisory opinion are authoritative and binding on the UK. (Conclusion, Paragraph 91)

26. We call on the Government to set out how it will align its policies with the advisory opinion issued by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas, including recognising greenhouse gas emissions as marine pollution and implementing measures to prevent, reduce, and mitigate such pollution based on the best available science. The Government should publish its position within two months of the publication of this report. (Recommendation, Paragraph 92)

27. The UK Government’s funding for programmes that enable local communities in Overseas Territories (OTs) to deliver marine conservation initiatives is critical for global marine protection, given the vast marine areas that are part of the UK’s OTs, and for empowering local communities. It is vital for the UK Government to demonstrate international leadership in marine protection to reinforce the UK’s commitment to sustainable marine governance globally. (Conclusion, Paragraph 97)

28. The UK Government should commit to continued and enhanced funding to deliver marine conservation initiatives through its Biodiversity Challenge Funds and Blue Belt Programme, which have delivered excellent marine conservation objectives globally. If the Government is to continue to prioritise climate action and marine conservation in Overseas Territories, despite cuts to Official Development Assistance spending, it must set out as a matter of urgency how it will do this. The Government should publish this explanation in its response to this report. (Recommendation, Paragraph 98)

Formal minutes

Monday 2 June 2025

Members present

Mr Toby Perkins, in the Chair

Olivia Blake

Barry Gardiner

Alison Griffiths

Pippa Heylings

Blake Stephenson

John Whitby

Sammy Wilson

[ … ]

The Committee deliberated.

Governing the marine environment

Draft Report (Governing the marine environment), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Paragraphs 1 to 98 read and agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Second Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

[ … ]

Adjournment

Adjourned till Wednesday 4 June 2025 at 2.00 pm.

Witnesses

The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

Wednesday 8 January 2025

Dr Michaela Schratzberger, Science Director (Environment), Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS); David Tomaney, Chief Data Officer, UK Hydrographic Office; Alan Evans, Head of Marine Policy, National Oceanography CentreQ1-31

Professor Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Chair of Public International Law, Queen Mary University of London; Professor Philippa Webb, Professor of Public International Law, University of Oxford; Professor Richard Barnes, Professor of International Law, University of LincolnQ32-52

Wednesday 29 January 2025

Dr Gemma Harper OBE, Chief Executive, Joint Nature Conservation Committee; Jennifer Godwin, Chief Executive Officer, Seabed User and Developer Group; Gareth Cunningham, Director of Conservation and Policy, Marine Conservation SocietyQ53-96

Professor Melanie Austen, Professor of Ocean and Society, University of Plymouth; Professor Heather Koldewey, Lead, Bertarelli Foundation’s Marine Science Programme, Zoological Society of LondonQ97-121

Wednesday 5 March 2025

Mike Cohen, CEO, National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO); Jacques Villemot, Marine Rewilding Lead, Rewilding Britain; Benj Sykes, Vice President and UK Country Manager, ØrstedQ122-147

Andrew Bell, Director, UNESCO Biosphere, North Devon; Mark Russell, Executive Director, British Marine Aggregate Producers Association; Mark Simmonds, Director of Policy, The British Ports AssociationQ148-162

Wednesday 2 April 2025

Michelle Willis, CEO, Marine Management Organisation; Olivia Thomas, Head of Planning and Technical, The Crown Estate; Ronan O’Hara, Chief Executive, Crown Estate ScotlandQ163-214

Emma Hardy MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Water and Flooding), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; The Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (International Development, Latin America and Caribbean), Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Mike Rowe, Director for Marine and Fisheries, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Helen Mulvein OBE, Deputy Director for Ocean Policy, and Legal Counsellor, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development OfficeQ215-271

Published written evidence

The following written evidence was received and can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

GME numbers are generated by the evidence processing system and so may not be complete.

1 Applied Marine Ecosystem Research (aMER) unit, University of Plymouth GME0054

2 Association of Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities GME0004

3 Barnes, Professor Richard (The Law School, University of Lincoln/University of Tromsø); Dr Mercedes Rosello (The Law School, University of Lincoln) GME0040

4 Blue Marine Foundation GME0034

5 British Marine Aggregate Producers Association GME0057

6 British Marine Aggregate Producers Association GME0037

7 Buchan, Dr Pamela (Research Fellow, University of Exeter) GME0012

8 Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) GME0044

9 Crown Estate Scotland GME0050

10 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs GME0059

11 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs GME0055

12 Fitzmaurice, Professor Malgosia (Chair of Public International Law, Queen Mary University of London) GME0007

13 Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office GME0062

14 Great Blue Ocean coalition GME0035

15 Greenpeace UK GME0016

16 Guida, Dr Raffaella (Associate Professor, Surrey Space Centre, University of Surrey) GME0025

17 Harrison, Professor James (Professor of Environmental Law, University of Edinburgh) GME0001

18 Hawkes, Dr Lucy; Dr Matthew Witt (University of Exeter) GME0026

19 Historic England GME0038

20 Joint Nature Conservation Committee GME0056

21 Joint Nature Conservation Committee GME0036

22 Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee GME0028

23 Jones, Professor Peter (Emeritus Professor of Environmental Governance, Department of Geography, University College London) GME0033

24 Marine Conservation Society GME0046

25 Marine Conservation Society GME0053

26 National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) GME0061

27 National Oceanography Centre GME0029

28 Natural England GME0022

29 Naylor, Dr Paul (Marine biologist and underwater photographer, Marinephoto) GME0015

30 Northern Ireland Marine Task Force GME0045

31 Ocean Conservation Trust GME0018

32 Oceana UK GME0060

33 Oceana UK GME0005

34 Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult GME0003

35 Orsted GME0041

36 Peel Ports Group GME0008

37 Pitchford, Professor Jon (Professor of Biology and Mathematics, University of York) GME0024

38 Plymouth Marine Laboratory GME0010

39 Postlethwaite, Dr Clare (Coordinator of the Marine Environmental Data and Information Network (MEDIN), National Oceanography Centre) GME0030

40 RWE Renewables Ltd GME0042

41 RenewableUK GME0017

42 Schratzberger, Dr Michaela (Science Director Environment & Energy, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)) GME0047

43 Scientific Diving Supervisory Committee GME0011

44 Scottish Association for Marine Science GME0019

45 Schéré, Dr Constance; Professor Kate Schreckenberg; Professor Terry Dawson (King’s College London) GME0009

46 Seabed User and Developer Group GME0052

47 Seal Research Trust GME0020

48 The Crown Estate GME0027

49 The Heritage Alliance GME0058

50 The Heritage Alliance GME0048

51 The Open Seas Trust GME0031

52 The Pew Charitable Trusts GME0023

53 The Wildlife Trusts GME0039

54 UK Hydrographic Office GME0049

55 UK Hydrographic Office GME0051

56 UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum GME0032

57 Waller, Dr Alexander (Visiting Professor, American University of Sovereign Nations) GME0006

58 Wessex Archaeology GME0021

59 Whale and Dolphin Conservation GME0013

60 Wildlife and Countryside Link GME0043

61 Wright, Deborah Rowan GME0002

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website.

Session 2024–25

Number	Title	Reference
1st	The role of natural capital in the UK’s green economy	HC 501
2nd Special	Net zero and UK shipping: Government Response	HC 705

---

Footnotes

1 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 5 reasons you should care about our ocean, June 2022

2 Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (Sustainable Development Commission, What is sustainable development); United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Goal 14 (accessed 6 May 2025)

3 United Nations Environment Programme, The marine environment is an essential component of the global life-support system, May 2016

4 Dr Michaela Schratzberger (Science Director Environment & Energy at Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)) (GME0047); Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Marine Habitat Classification (accessed 6 May 2025); Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment Energy Appendix 1a.4 - Fish and Shellfish, March 2016

5 National Energy System Operator, Britain’s Electricity Explained: 2024 Review, 7 January 2025

6 Stebbings. E, Pappathanasopoulou. E, Hooper. T, Austen. M, Yan. X, The marine economy of the United Kingdom, Marine Policy, Volume 116, 2020

7 Based on Office for National Statistics data from 2014. See previous reference

8 World Wildlife Fund, Navigating Ocean Risk, 2021

9 Qq1–2

10 United Nations Environment Programme, The marine environment is an essential component of the global life-support system, May 2016

11 Q23

12 Greenpeace, Two-thirds of Brits demand action to protect oceans, 1 March 2024

13 See previous reference

14 For example, see Q2; Q98

15 The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, referred to as the Ocean Decade, runs from 2021 to 2030: 2025 marks its half-way point. The Ocean Decade provides a framework for scientists and stakeholders to develop partnerships and scientific knowledge to better understand the ocean and ensure sustainable development of the marine ecosystem. The UK has a National Decade Committee to support the UN’s Ocean Decade on a local, national and international level.

16 National Oceanography Centre, In-depth knowledge of the ocean helps our planet flourish (accessed 6 May 2025)

17 Manages estates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

18 Manages estates in Scotland

19 House of Commons Library, Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024–25, 14 February, 2025. See also: The Crown Estate, Our history (accessed 6 May 2025); HM Treasury and The Crown Estate, The Crown Estate annual report and accounts 2023 to 2024, 24 July 2024

20 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status, October 2019

21 Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Cefas (accessed 6 May 2025)

22 Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Adviser to Government on Nature Conservation (accessed 6 May 2025)

23 Marine Management Organisation (accessed 6 May 2025)

24 Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, The Blue Belt Programme, gov.uk, (accessed 6 May 2025)

25 Maritime and Coastguard Agency, gov.uk, (accessed 6 May 2025)

26 Historic England, Championing England’s heritage (accessed 6 May 2025)

27 UK Hydrographic Office, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

28 UK Research and Innovation, UKRI (accessed 6 May 2025)

29 Q74

30 Q105

31 The Joint Nature Conservation Committee is a public body that advises the UK Government and devolved administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation.

32 Q74

33 For example, see Q122 [Mike Cohen]; RenewableUK (GME0017); Q9

34 Q9

35 Q123 [Mike Cohen]

36 For example, see Q74; Q105

37 Q123 [Benj Sykes]

38 For example, see Qq233–234; Q264; Q267;

39 Q175 [Michelle Willis]

40 Q234

41 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Building the North Sea’s Energy Future: consultation document, March 2025

42 For example, see Professor Richard Barnes (Professor of International Law at University of Lincoln, University of Tromso); Dr Mercedes Rosello (Senior Lecture at University of Lincoln) (GME0040); Wildlife and Countryside Link (GME0043)

43 For example, see Dr Pamela Buchan (Research Fellow at University of Exeter) (GME0012); Q104 [Professor Heather Koldewey]; Pamela M. Buchan, Louisa S. Evans, Margherita Pieraccini, Stewart Barr, Marine citizenship: The right to participate in the transformation of the human-ocean relationship for sustainability, 13 March 2023

44 The Highly Protected Marine Areas proposed would strictly protect and leave undisturbed all natural processes of the marine ecosystem within the site boundaries. (Scottish Government, Highly Protected Marine Areas, November 2023)

45 Scottish Government, Scottish Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) consultation: Scottish Government response, 7 November 2023

46 Northern Ireland Marine Task Force (GME0045); The Wildlife Trusts (GME0039), Q137

47 Q137

48 Scottish Sea Farms, Response to HPMA Consultation, 17 April 2023

49 Northern Ireland Marine Task Force (GME0045)

50 Q109

51 Q108 [Professor Heather Koldewey]

52 Dr Pamela Buchan (Research Fellow at University of Exeter) (GME0012). See also, Clarke, J., & Flannery, W, The post-political nature of marine spatial planning and modalities for its re-politicisation. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2019.

53 Q253

54 The Wildlife Trusts (GME0039)

55 Q13 [Alan Evans]

56 As covered in Chapter Three

57 Marine Management Organisation, Summary - Enhancing stakeholder engagement: Analysis of experiences and insights (MMO1152), October 2019

58 Marine Management Organisation, Enhancing stakeholder engagement: Analysis of experiences and insights (MMO1152), October 2019

59 Marine Management Organisation, About the Marine Management Organisation – Marine developments (accessed 6 May 2025)

60 Q13 [Dr Michaela Schratzberger]

61 For example, see Burdon, D. & Potts, T., (2020). Participatory mapping of natural capital and benefits: method guidance document. Report to Marine Management Organisation and the Suffolk Marine Pioneer Project by Daryl Burdon Ltd., Willerby, UK (Report No. DB LTD 007/2019c); Schwermer, H., Barz, F., Zablotski, Y. (2020). A Literature Review on Stakeholder Participation in Coastal and Marine Fisheries. In: Jungblut, S., Liebich, V., Bode-Dalby, M. (eds) YOUMARES 9 - The Oceans: Our Research, Our Future. Springer, Cham.

62 Q13 [Dr Michaela Schratzberger]

63 British Marine Aggregate Producers Association (GME0057)

64 Q107 [Professor Heather Koldewey]

65 Q132

66 Q155 [Mark Russell]

67 Q107 [Professor Heather Koldewey]

68 Q132

69 Crown Estate Scotland (GME0050)

70 For example, see Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (GME0055); House of Commons Library, Debate on the fishing industry - House of Commons Library, 28 June, 2023

71 Office for Environmental Protection, Evidence Review Report - Drivers and Pressures Affecting the UK Marine Environment, March 2024

72 Marine Management Organisation, North East Marine Plans, February 2024, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

73 Marine Management Organisation, Marine planning in England, June 2024, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

74 Marine Management Organisation, North West Marine Plans, February 2024, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

75 Marine Management Organisation, North East Marine Plans, February 2024, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

76 Marine Management Organisation, South West Marine Plans, February 2024, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

77 Marine Management Organisation, South East Marine Plans, February 2024, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

78 Marine Management Organisation, South Marine Plans , February 2024, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

79 Marine Management Organisation, East Marine Plans, February 2024, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

80 Exceptions exist, such as when a relevant national policy statement for a national infrastructure project carries greater weight and takes precedence over the Marine Policy Statement or a marine plan.

81 For example, see Q155 [Mark Russell]; Oceana UK (GME0005); Q75 [Jennifer Godwin]; Plymouth Marine Laboratory (GME0010)

82 Oceana UK (GME0005)

83 Q165

84 For example, see Q155 [Mark Russell]; Oceana UK (GME0005); Q75 [Jennifer Godwin]. See also, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Marine Renewables, POSTnote 625, June 2020

85 UK Government, Clean Power 2030: Action Plan: A new era of clean electricity, December 2024

86 Oceana UK (GME0005); HM Government, UK Marine Policy Statement, 30 September 2011

87 UK Government, Clean Power 2030: Action Plan: A new era of clean electricity, December 2024

88 Q153 [Mark Simmonds]

89 Q104 [Professor Melanie Austen]

90 Q243

91 Q244

92 HM Government, UK Marine Policy Statement, 30 September 2011

93 Q242 [Mike Rowe]

94 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (GME0059)

95 For example, see Oceana UK (GME0005); Q59; National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, Spatial Squeeze in Fisheries, June 2022; Whale and Dolphin Conservation (GME0013)

96 Whale and Dolphin Conservation (GME0013)

97 For example, see Oceana UK (GME0005); RenewableUK (GME0017); The Crown Estate (GME0027); The Wildlife Trusts (GME0039); RWE Renewables Ltd (GME0042); Marine Conservation Society (GME0046); Professor Richard Barnes (Professor of International Law at University of Lincoln, University of Tromso), Dr Mercedes Rosello (Senior Lecture at University of Lincoln) (GME0040)

98 See also, UK’s Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies, Nature Recovery Joint Statement, 2022; Office for Environmental Protection, Evidence Review Report - Drivers and Pressures Affecting the UK Marine Environment, March 2024

99 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (GME0055)

100 See previous reference

101 Marine Environment PQ 11184, 23 January 2024

102 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (GME0055)

103 For example, see The Wildlife Trusts (GME0039); Plymouth Marine Laboratory (GME0010); RenewableUK (GME0017)

104 The Wildlife Trusts (GME0039)

105 For example, see Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (GME0055); Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government Response to the 2nd report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee on the potential contribution of nature-based solutions to net zero in the UK “Nature-based solutions: rhetoric or reality?”, 21 April 2022; Marine Management Organisation, East Marine Plan Spatial Assessment, 11 September 2023; Marine Environment HCWS394, 29 January 2025; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister Pow keynote speech - Coastal Futures 2022, 18 January 2022

106 For example, see Q123 [Mike Cohen]; Q243

107 A just transition should seek to consider the interests of those who are most affected by a low-carbon transition, including workers, vulnerable communities, suppliers of goods and services and businesses to ensure no one is ‘left behind’. (LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, What is the just transition and what does it mean for climate action?, 20 February 2024). See also, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Leaving No One Behind in the Transition Towards a Low-Carbon Economy, 12 April 2023 (accessed 6 May 2025)

108 For example, see Rewilding Britain, Marine rewilding (accessed 6 May 2025); Q96 [Dr Gemma Harper]; Q86 [Gareth Cunningham]

109 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government to launch £360m Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, 19 May 2025

110 Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund PQ 53717, 27 May 2025

111 HM Government, Environmental Improvement Plan 2023, 7 Feb 2023

112 Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science UK Monitoring and Assessment Reporting Group (MARG), Introduction to UK Marine Strategy (accessed 6 May 2025). See also, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Marine Protected Areas and Highly Protected Marine Areas, POSTnote 698, 28 June 2023

113 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine strategy part three: 2025 UK programme of measures, 29 January 2025, HM Government, Environmental Improvement Plan 2023, 7 Feb 2023

114 Office of Environmental Protection, OEP launches investigation into a suspected failure by Defra to take the necessary measures to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of marine waters, 9 January 2025

115 Achieved: eutrophication, changes in hydrographical conditions, contaminants and contaminants in seafood. Partially achieved: cetaceans, seals, pelagic habitats, food webs, input of anthropogenic sound. Not Achieved: birds, fish, benthic habitats, non-indigenous species, commercial fish and litter. (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine strategy part three: 2025 UK programme of measures, 29 January 2025)

116 Q73 [Dr Harper]. See also, Q140 [Jacques Villemot]

117 Oral evidence taken on 26 February 2025, Q38 [Dame Glenys Stacey DBE]

118 The Oslo Paris convention (OSPAR) is the mechanism by which 15 Governments and the European Union cooperate to protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic by preventing and eliminating pollution, assessing the quality of the marine environment and protecting and conserving the ecosystem and biological diversity. (OSPAR Commission, Convention (accessed 6 May 2025))

119 Q73 [Dr Gemma Harper]

120 Q140 [Jacques Villemot]

121 The GBF sets out global targets for 2030 including the effective conservation and management of at least 30% of the world’s coastal areas and oceans.

122 Convention on Biological Diversity, COP15: Final text of Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, 22 December 2022.

123 For example, see House of Commons Library, Biodiversity loss: The UK’s international obligations, 11 July 2024; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, PM commits to protect 30% of UK land in boost for biodiversity, 28 September 2020

124 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 30by30 on land in England: confirmed criteria and next steps, 29 October 2024

125 House of Lords Library, COP15: Global biodiversity framework, 6 January 2023

126 Thomas Engelhard, COP15: Reflections on the GBF, 22 December 2022. See also, House of Lords Library, COP15: Global biodiversity framework, 6 January 2023

127 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 30by30 on land in England: confirmed criteria and next steps, 29 October 2024

128 Q81 [Dr Gemma Harper]

129 Q81[Dr Gemma Harper]

130 Dr Michaela Schratzberger (Science Director Environment & Energy at Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)) (GME0047)

131 Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK Marine Protected Area network statistics, 5 July 2023

132 Marine Management Organisation, Marine Protected Areas, 13 March 2023. See also, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, MPA Mapper (accessed 6 May 2025)

133 Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Marine Conservation Zones, 2 December 2019

134 Joint Nature Conservation Committee, English Highly Protected Marine Areas, 5 July 2023

135 NatureScot, Background to NCMPA selection (accessed 6 May 2025)

136 Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Special Areas of Conservation, 30 April 2025

137 Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Special Areas of Conservation, 30 April 2025

138 Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Guidelines for selection of SSSIs, 27 November 2024

139 Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK Protected Areas, 20 Mary 2025

140 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Marine Protected Areas and Highly Protected Marine Areas, POSTnote 698, 28 June 2023. See also, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Biodiversity marine target Detailed evidence report, 28 April 2022; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine protected areas network report 2012 to 2018, 17 Dec 2018

141 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Marine Protected Areas and Highly Protected Marine Areas, POSTnote, 28 June 2023

142 Environment and Climate Change Committee (2023). Written evidence from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (PAE0009).

143 Joint Nature Conservation Committee, English Highly Protected Marine Areas, July 2023

144 For example, see Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology, Marine Protected Areas and Highly Protected Marine Areas, June 2023; House of Commons Library, Debate on Marine Protected Areas, 27 April 2023

145 Q15. See also, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK Marine Protected Area network statistics, 5 July 2023

146 Q20. See also, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Summary of progress towards Good Environmental Status - Marine online assessment tool (accessed 6 May 2025); Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine strategy part three: 2025 UK programme of measures, 29 January 2025

147 Office for Environmental Protection, Evidence Review Report - Drivers and Pressures Affecting the UK Marine Environment, March 2024

148 UK Government, PM secures new agreement with EU to benefit British people, 19 May 2025

149 For example, see UK Government, Global Ocean Alliance (accessed 6 May 2025); Marine Environment PQ 46509, 16 September 2022; House of Commons Library, Ratification of the Global Ocean Treaty, 7 May 2025

150 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN 2025 Ocean Conference

151 Oceana UK (GME0005). See also, House of Commons Library, Biodiversity loss: The UK’s international obligations, 11 July 2024

152 For example, see Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Marine Protected Areas and Highly Protected Marine Areas, POSTnote 698, 28 June 2023; Q14 [Dr Michaela Schratzberger]; Q112

153 Q14 [Dr Michaela Schratzberger]. See also, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, English Highly Protected Marine Areas, July 2023

154 For example, see Joint Nature Conservation Committee, English Highly Protected Marine Areas, July 2023; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs), 25 May 2023

155 For example, see Roberts, S., Aguilar, R., Warrenchuk, J., Hudson, C. & Hirshfield, M. (2005) Deep sea life: On the edge of the abyss. Oceana; Frith Dunkley, Jean-Luc Solandt. (2022), Windfarms, fishing and benthic recovery: Overlaps, risks and opportunities, Marine Policy, Volume 145; Perry, Allison & Blanco Vime, Jorge & García, Silvia & Fournier, Nicolas. (2022). Extensive Use of Habitat-Damaging Fishing Gears Inside Habitat-Protecting Marine Protected Areas. Frontiers in Marine Science.

156 Oceana UK, Just 10 fishing vessels responsible for a quarter of harmful suspected bottom trawling in UK offshore protected areas, March 2024. See also, Blue Marine Foundation, Ban bottom trawling in marine protected areas, July 2024; Roberts, S., Aguilar, R., Warrenchuk, J., Hudson, C. & Hirshfield, M., Deep sea life: On the edge of the abyss, 2005, Oceana; Q112

157 UK Government, PM secures new agreement with EU to benefit British people, 19 May 2025

158 For example, see The Guardian, Attenborough at 99: naturalist ‘goes further than before’ to speak out against industrial fishing in new film, 1 May 2025 (accessed 6 May 2025); BBC News, Sir David Attenborough Ocean film ‘greatest message he’s told’, 6 May 2025 (accessed 6 May 2025)

159 For example, see Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgement of the General Court, 21 May 2025; Oceanographic, EU Court: Marine Protected Areas must be shielded from trawling, 22 May 2025; Ocean and Coastal Futures, EU court say MPAs must be protected from bottom trawling, 27 May 2025

160 Q113 [Professor Melanie Austen]. See also, Office for Environmental Protection, Evidence Review Report - Drivers and Pressures Affecting the UK Marine Environment, March 2024

161 The Wildlife Trusts (GME0039). See also, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Blue carbon, POSTnote 651, September 2021; Burrows, M.T., O’Dell, A., Tillin, H., Grundy, S., Sugden, H., Moore, P., Fitzsimmons, C., Austin, W., Smeaton, C. 2024. The United Kingdom’s Blue Carbon Inventory: Assessment of Marine Carbon Storage and Sequestration Potential in UK Seas (Including Within Marine Protected Areas). A Report to The Wildlife Trusts, WWF and the RSPB. Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban

162 For example, see Natural England, Carbon Storage and Sequestration by Habitat 2021 - NERR094, 20 April 2021; Natural England (GME0022)

163 Perry, Allison & Blanco Vime, Jorge & García, Silvia & Fournier, Nicolas. (2022). Extensive Use of Habitat-Damaging Fishing Gears Inside Habitat-Protecting Marine Protected Areas. Frontiers in Marine Science.

164 For example, see: Wildlife and Countryside Link, The whole-site approach to managing MPAs, March 2020; Rewilding Britain, Marine rewilding (accessed 6 May 2025); Oceana UK (GME0060)

165 Q142 [Jacques Villemot]

166 For example, see Q127 National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) (GME0061)

167 Q143

168 See previous reference

169 Benthic means relating to, or occurring in the depths of the ocean.

170 Q82. See also, Marine Management Organisation, Dogger Bank SAC MMO Call For Evidence Decision Document, February 2021

171 Wildlife and Countryside Link (GME0043). See also, Q83

172 IFCAs are statutory regulators responsible for sustainably managing the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in inshore areas. (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities: conduct and operations 2018 to 2022, 6 February 2025)

173 Inshore refers to the area of the sea Within 12 miles of the coast.

174 NatureScot (accessed 6 May 2025)

175 Natural Resources Wales (accessed 6 May 2025)

176 Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (accessed 6 May 2025)

177 Dr Michaela Schratzberger (Science Director Environment & Energy at Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)) (GME0047)

178 Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

179 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. See also, Natural England Standard Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

180 Fisheries Act 2020

181 Marine Management Organisation, Managing fishing in marine protected areas, 17 January 2023

182 Marine Management Organisation, Formal Consultation - MMO management of fishing activity impacts in marine protected areas - Stage 2, 1 February 2024

183 Q126; Q60; Q56

184 Q135

185 Q209 [Michelle Willis]

186 See previous reference

187 Q263; Q270

188 Q91

189 The Wildlife Trusts (GME0039); Oceana UK (GME0005); Blue Marine Foundation (GME0034); Wildlife and Countryside Link (GME0043)

190 For example, see Q167; Q13 [David Tomaney]; Q176 [Olivia Thomas]; Q8

191 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Marine Protected Areas and Highly Protected Marine Areas, POSTnote 698, 28 June 2023. See also, Q59; Q63

192 For example, see Q56; Q55; Q7. See also, The Economist Group, (Marine protected areas are not being effectively monitored and assessed, undermining global goals according to Economist Impact research), 12 March 2024

193 Q63

194 Q59

195 Dorset’s Marine Protected Areas, Lyme Bay Reefs (accessed 6 May 2025)

196 Chloe Renn, Sian Rees, Adam Rees, Bede F R Davies, Amy Y Cartwright, Sam Fanshawe, Martin J Attrill, Luke A Holmes, Emma V Sheehan (2024), Lessons from Lyme Bay (UK) to inform policy, management, and monitoring of Marine Protected Areas, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 81, Issue 2, Pages 276–292

197 The Lyme Bay Designated Area (Fishing Restrictions) Order 2008

198 Lyme Bay Fisheries and Conservation Reserve, Supporting Local Fishermen (accessed 6 May 2025)

199 Blue Marine Foundation (accessed 6 May 2025)

200 European Commission, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) (accessed 6 May 2025)

201 Lyme Bay Fisheries and Conservation Reserve, Supporting Local Fishermen (accessed 6 May 2025)

202 Bede F. R. Davies, Luke Holmes, Adam Rees, Martin J. Attrill, Amy Y. Cartwright, Emma V. Sheehan, Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management works—How switching from mobile to static fishing gear improves populations of fished and non-fished species inside a marine-protected area, 08 September 2021

203 Q63

204 Qq8–9

205 Applied Marine Ecosystem Research (aMER) unit, University of Plymouth (GME0054)

206 See previous reference

207 See previous reference (GME0054)

208 For example, see Q98; Wildlife and Countryside Link (GME0043)

209 Q98

210 Applied Marine Ecosystem Research (aMER) unit, University of Plymouth (GME0054)

211 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Benyon review Into Highly Protected Marine Areas, 17 August 2022

212 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Highly Protected Marine Areas: Allonby Bay, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

213 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Highly Protected Marine Areas: Dolphin Head, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

214 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Highly Protected Marine Areas: North East of Farnes Deep, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

215 For example, see Chloe Renn, Sian Rees, Adam Rees, Bede F R Davies, Amy Y Cartwright, Sam Fanshawe, Martin J Attrill, Luke A Holmes, Emma V Sheehan, Lessons from Lyme Bay (UK) to inform policy, management, and monitoring of Marine Protected Areas, 16 January 2024; Jean-Luc Solandt, Thomas Mullier, Sophie Elliott, Emma Sheehan, Managing marine protected areas in Europe: Moving from ‘feature-based’ to ‘whole-site’ management of sites, 25 October 2019

216 For example, see Q11 [Professor Koldewey]; Q100

217 Q102

218 See previous reference

219 The Government’s 2023 Environmental Improvement Plan included targets for improving the natural environment, including marine protection and will be revised in 2028. (House of Commons Library, Are we on target for the environment?, 16 July 2024). See also, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Benyon review Into Highly Protected Marine Areas, 17 August 2022; Greenpeace UK (GME0016)

220 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Government unleashes offshore wind revolution, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

221 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Government unleashes offshore wind revolution, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025). See also, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Consultation for the establishment of the Marine Recovery Fund , gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

222 For example, see Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (GME0059); Wind Power: Seas and Oceans PQ 25869, 30 January 2025; Energy Act 2023

223 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Energy Security Bill factsheet: Offshore wind environmental improvement package, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

224 For example, see Ørsted (GME0041); RenewableUK (GME0017); Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Strategic compensation measures for offshore wind activities: Marine Recovery Fund interim guidance, 29 January 2025; Q130 [Mike Cohen]

225 Ørsted (GME0041)

226 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (GME0059); Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Government unleashes offshore wind revolution, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

227 For example, see Q123[Mike Cohen]; Marine Aggregate Producers Association (GME0057)

228 Q130 [Mike Cohen]

229 British Marine Aggregate Producers Association (GME0057)

230 Ørsted (GME0041)

231 Professor James Harrison (Professor of Environmental Law at University of Edinburgh) (GME0001)

232 Rogers, A., O. Aburto-Oropeza, et al. Critical Habitats and Biodiversity: Inventory, Thresholds and Governance. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2020.

233 See previous reference

234 House of Commons, Principles of International Law: a brief guide, September 2020

235 Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Treaties and Memoranda of Understanding, September 2022

236 The high seas are the body of oceans that are beyond territorial limits (or national jurisdiction) and beyond the exclusive economic zone of any country. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, What Is High Seas Governance? (accessed 6 May 2025))

237 United Nations, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982

238 United Nations, Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (accessed 6 May 2025)

239 House of Commons Library, Ratification of the Global Ocean Treaty, April 2024

240 United Nations, Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (accessed 6 May 2025)

241 Q117 [Professor Heather Koldewey]

242 For example, see Q117 [Professor Heather Koldewey]; Northern Ireland Marine Task Force (GME0045); Oceana UK (GME0005); Great Blue Ocean coalition (GME0035)

243 Q117 [Professor Heather Koldewey]

244 Q45 [Professor Maglosia Fitzmaurice]

245 Update on the Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement HCWS1062, 16 October 2023

246 Q257

247 International Development Committee, The UK Small Island Developing States Strategy, HC 476, 1 May 2024, para 75

248 International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas, Advisory Opinion, May 2024

249 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Paris Agreement (accessed 6 May 2025)

250 Q46 [Professor Philippa Webb]

251 Q46 [Professor Philippa Webb]

252 The EEZ is an area of sea beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea (area of sea extending 12 nautical miles from the coastline) that extends up to 200 nautical miles from a country’s coast

253 UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, Oceans and Seas (accessed 6 May 2025)

254 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for International Development, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy update, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

255 Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, The Blue Belt Programme, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

256 UK Government, World’s most remote island helps UK exceed protected ocean target, 13 November 2020

257 Darwin Plus: environment funding for the UK overseas territories, gov.uk (accessed 6 May 2025)

258 Biodiversity Challenge Funds, BCFs (accessed 6 May 2025)

259 Great Blue Ocean coalition (GME0035)

260 Environmental Audit Committee, The UK and the Antarctic environment [revived], opened 23 December 2024

261 For example, see UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (GME0032); Great Blue Ocean coalition (GME0035)

262 For example, see Q102; Great Blue Ocean coalition (GME0035)

263 Great Blue Ocean coalition (GME0035)

264 For example, see Q102; Great Blue Ocean coalition (GME0035)

265 Q238