List of Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Knowledge of the broad trends in the marine
environment is developing but is already sufficient to state with
reasonable confidence that marine biodiversity in the seas around
the EU is degrading. In line with the precautionary principle,
the current degree of uncertainty should not delay action now.
The positive impacts of recent management measures in specific
areas, such as fish stocks, can give confidence of the benefits
of action taken on the basis of the precautionary principle. (Paragraph 27)
2. Knowledge of the cumulative impacts of all
human activities on the marine ecosystem remains very limited,
despite the fact that its consideration is a statutory requirement
in both EU and UK legislation. It is an area that would benefit
from greater regional co-operation but, for this to happen, agreement
on terminology and on the methodology for assessment is required.
We recommend that the preparatory work on methodology that has
been undertaken thus far within OSPAR and the International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea be applied to practical pilot projects
in the North Sea. (Recommendation 1) (Paragraph 35)
3. We recommend that the European Commission
carry out a specific analysis of work undertaken by Member States
to assess the cumulative impact of human activities, in line with
Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. We recommend
also that the Commission review the consistency of cumulative
impact obligations across EU environmental legislation and, furthermore,
how those obligations are implemented in national legislation.
(Recommendation 2) (Paragraph 36)
4. Data collection initiatives are not in short
supply, but we are concerned that efforts may be duplicated and
that the best, most cost-effective, use is not being made of existing
data. This will need to be resolved in order to meet the requirements
of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive in relation to the
organisation and use of data. (Paragraph 45)
5. National governments around the North Sea
must commit to a single cross-border data collection initiative
and allocate resources accordingly. Such a commitment could encourage
a similar approach in other sea basins. (Paragraph 46)
6. We recommend that the European Commission
work closely with the European Marine Observatory Data network
(EMODnet) to ensure that awareness of the network is raised and
that its database includes as much of the available information
as possible. We recommend that consideration be given to increasing
funding for EMODnet, so that it can format and quality-assure
data itself, rather than relying on those submitting the data.
(Recommendation 3) (Paragraph 48)
7. Knowledge co-operation should extend to the
analysis of available data. So far as the UK is concerned, we
recommend that the Marine Science Co-ordination Committee develop
a mechanism for such analysis. We recommend that the UK Government
feed that work into discussion at OSPAR on adopting a similar
approach for data analysis at the North Sea level, linking this
in to any expansion of EMODnet's capacity. (Recommendation 4)
(Paragraph 52)
8. The confluence of shipping lanes and offshore
structures is a particular issue in the southern North Sea. We
observe that International Maritime Organization guidance is comprehensive
in its navigational safety requirements and we are confident that
the UK has a regulatory process in place to implement that guidance.
It is, however, evident that there are concerns about the application
of navigational safety provisions across the North Sea as a whole.
We recommend that the UK Government, in partnership with the International
Maritime Organization and neighbouring countries, ensure that
comprehension of the provisions is adequate and that the process
is transparent. (Recommendation 5) (Paragraph 69)
9. There are examples of co-operation between
users of the sea, but as competition for space grows increasingly
intense, so the need to co-operate will intensify. Marine planning
may contribute to productive co-operation that spans sectors and
users, but it is not a silver bullet for overcoming tensions and
maximising opportunities in the marine environment. (Paragraph 85)
10. The reality of marine planning is that, insofar
as it exists around the EU, it is embryonic. There is broad support
for the concept, but it is now important that users should begin
to see its practical benefits, most notably in providing a more
predictable planning framework for investment and for the multiple
users of the North Sea. (Paragraph 86)
11. We note the emphasis placed on the importance
of a comprehensive approach that features both certainty and the
flexibility to take into account innovative developments. While
a full review of the application of the Marine Policy Statement
across the UK would be premature, we recommend to the Government
and devolved administrations that concerns about certainty, flexibility
and coverage be reflected and addressed in plans as they are developed,
thereby ensuring that strategic marine planning is seen as the
primary platform for managing competing demands. A distinction
must be drawn between marine planning on the one hand and the
licensing of individual marine developments on the other. (Recommendation
6) (Paragraph 87)
12. We welcome the 20 year vision under the first
English marine plans, but we can discern no long term strategic
planning for the seas around the UK as a whole, or even around
England. This is in stark contrast to the Dutch approach, which
sets a vision to 2050. Management of the seas must not only focus
on the present: it must take into account potential future developments
and must do so in a way that is credible for users. This requires
a long term vision. We urge the UK Government and devolved administrations
to consider the development of a strategy akin to, and ideally
aligned with, the Dutch North Sea 2050 Spatial Agenda. (Recommendation
7) (Paragraph 89)
13. We welcome the appointment of a European
Commissioner responsible for both environmental policy and maritime
affairs. An important priority for the new Commissioner should
be to ensure that EU legislation affecting the marine environment
is consistent. We recommend that the Commission publish guidance
for Member States on implementation of such legislation at national
level, to improve consistency both between Member States and within
the Member States. (Recommendation 8) (Paragraph 97)
14. In the short term, we recommend that the
fitness check of the Habitats and Birds Directives should include
assessment of the coherence of the implementation of those Directives
with related legislation, such as the Common Fisheries Policy
and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. (Recommendation 9)
(Paragraph 98)
15. We also recommend that the fitness check
consider the desirability of requiring Member States to co-operate
with one another in designating sites under the Habitats and Birds
Directives in order to develop ecologically coherent networks
of such sites. (Recommendation 10) (Paragraph 99)
16. We support the principle that EU regional
co-operation on marine issues should involve regional and local
authorities as well as the EU and its Member States. We see an
important role for the North Sea Commission as a forum for bringing
regional and local authorities together. (Paragraph 105)
17. The engagement in England by some Local Enterprise
Partnerships in marine issues demonstrates an acknowledgement
that local economic growth can be derived from the sea. We therefore
regret the lack of English local authority engagement in the North
Sea Commission, particularly in contrast with the greater level
of engagement by Scottish local authorities and those elsewhere.
We recognise that there are financial consequences of membership,
but there are nevertheless significant benefits to be gained from
co-operation. We therefore recommend that the UK Government and
the Local Government Association collaborate to identify and address
barriers, including resources, to improved engagement by English
local authorities in the work of the North Sea Commission. (Recommendation
11) (Paragraph 106)
18. We observe that co-operation between countries
concerning the marine environment has often been prompted by some
form of crisis or disaster. The ensuing efforts in the North Sea
region have resulted in some effective tools and useful mechanisms
for co-operation which take account of environmental considerations.
(Paragraph 117)
19. Regulatory barriers to greater cross-border
energy co-operation remain. Member States should prioritise efforts
to overcome technical obstacles associated with trading options
and asset costs. In particular, we urge the UK Government to continue
its work in overcoming the regulatory barriers involved in the
North Seas Countries Offshore Grid Initiative. (Recommendation
12) (Paragraph 124)
20. We note the successes that have resulted
from the work of the fisheries Advisory Councils and support their
enhanced role in Commission-level consultations. In the light
of their enhanced role, we recommend an urgent review of their
funding by the Commission. We also recommend that the UK Government
consider how it may be able to contribute additional resources
to enable Advisory Councils to fulfil their obligations. (Recommendation
13) (Paragraph 131)
21. The experience of co-operation thus far indicates
that clear direction from national governments is an essential
factor in effective marine co-operation. A lack of leadership
in situations where it has not proved possible to align economic
interests with environmental protection, has led to paralysis.
An example is the Dogger Bank, where we urge the UK Government
to show political leadership by intensifying efforts to agree
a joint recommendation for fisheries management. Failing any such
resolution, we recommend that the European Commission consider
the option of adopting urgent measures to manage the area. (Paragraph 145)
22. Competence over elements of marine policy
ranges from the international to the local and it is not therefore
appropriate for the European Commission to take a decisive role
in leading cross-border co-operation to develop coherent marine
plans in the North Sea. The examples of co-operation that we have
highlighted demonstrate that it is possible to co-operate effectively,
while respecting the boundaries of national competence. (Paragraph 146)
23. We recommend that, through a joint effort,
national governments and the European Commission map the institutions
and frameworks that currently exist, in order to inform decisions
about future co-operation and to assist stakeholders. (Recommendation
15) (Paragraph 151)
24. Co-operation between stakeholders and Member
States can deliver efficiencies and enable limited resources to
go further. (Paragraph 163)
25. Accessing resources can be problematic, and
so we recommend that the European Commission prepare and publish
guidance on navigating and accessing the existing funding opportunities.
(Recommendation 16) (Paragraph 164)
26. We welcome the recent introduction of the
Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, particularly the obligation
upon Member States to co-operate across national boundaries, but
are conscious that its success will be contingent on effective
implementation. (Paragraph 171)
27. We recommend that the UK Government and the
devolved administrations initiate strategic discussions with bordering
North Sea countries as the UK marine plans are being developed,
so that areas of common interest and potential conflict can be
identified and addressed early in the planning process. (Recommendation
17) (Paragraph 172)
28. The technology for establishing a North Sea
Energy Grid exists, but progress has been hampered by regulatory
and political constraints. Should the UK Government and other
coastal states wish to achieve this objective, they should work
together on a pilot project. Such a project would form part of
the EU's move towards improved energy system governance and would
involve enhanced regional co-operation. (Paragraph 177)
29. We recommend that the UK Government work
with other North Sea Member States on the development of the pilot
marine planning project in the North Sea, as suggested by the
German government. This could be funded by the North Sea Region
Programme. (Recommendation 18) (Paragraph 178)
30. We support the idea of a North Sea Maritime
Forum composed of relevant stakeholders. Strong leadership will
be needed to manage competing interests in such a forum and we
therefore urge the UK Government to take ownership of this idea.
As a first step, we recommend that the UK Government work with
the European Commission to identify a source of funding for the
forum, which could involve engaging with the North Sea Region
Programme. (Recommendation 19) (Paragraph 183)
31. We conclude that no existing body or mechanism
has a broad enough remit, or is able, to facilitate the political
co-operation required to make the necessary step-change in the
management of the North Sea basin. (Paragraph 189)
32. Visionary leadership is required and we therefore
recommend that the UK Government convene a North Sea ministerial
conference to take stock of the overarching challenges and opportunities
in the North Sea marine environment. This should build on the
environmental focus of earlier ministerial conferences, and take
a more holistic approach, extending to the consideration of economic
sectors including shipping, fishing and energy. Such a ministerial
conference should aspire to a common political vision for the
North Sea, which, through genuine co-operation, delivers a sustainable
and secure resource for the future. (Recommendation 20) (Paragraph 190)
| 
