Marine Nature Conservation - Essay Example

Marine Nature Conservation Impact of the proposed UK Marine Bill 2006 August 2006 Marine nature conservation is an important environmental issue, which requires adequate protection, especially in light of the damage being inflicted upon it as a result of manmade actions such as pollution, over-fishing and climate change. If an effort to address this problem the UK government has produced a consultation document for a proposed new Marine Bill. There has been much debate about whether the new Marine Bill is sufficiently robust as to provide the level of protection that is needed for sites of interest to marine nature conservation. The purpose of this report is to address this question. To assist in our arrival at a conclusion we have researched the concerns surrounding marine conservation, reviewed the consultative document, and the opinions expressed by environmental and commercial organisations. In addition we have also studied the recognised failure of the European Common Fisheries policy. The result of our research indicates that there are issues relating to the protection of these sites that are not adequately addressed in the proposed bill as it stands and, without this happening, it does not provide adequate protection. Marine Nature Conservation Impact of the proposed UK Marine Bill 2006 Are the provisions to be included within the proposed Maritime Bill of sufficient scope and breadth to provide the necessary protection for the sites of interests to marine nature conservation? Many environmental groups are suggesting that the bill does not go far enough, claiming the “statutory programme of site protection has never caught up with voluntary initiatives,” (S. Gubbay 1995). However, commercial organisations are generally in agreement with the findings of the document. The intention of this report is to study the proposals, together with the various arguments, in an effort to resolve the question. The seas around the UK provide enjoyment for millions of people as well as many jobs. It is also full of natural resources upon which we have come to depend and, in addition it provides a home for numerous species of marine life and plants and has been a source of natural resources. In their report Laffoley and Baines (2000) further revealed that “It is estimated that 50% of the UK’s biodiversity is found in the seas.” It follows that marine conservation is therefore important to enable us to better understand the affect that human activity has on this environment as well as preserving the benefits of it for the future. The consultation proposal (2006) seeks to address a number of areas in an attempt to provide a comprehensive framework for marine conservation and providing a situation where the various demands made upon the environment can be managed more effectively as part of a concerted effort to encourage sustainability against a backdrop of the increasing demands that are being made on our seas and its resources. The five areas, which the proposals concentrate upon, are fisheries management, planning, activity licensing, improving marine nature conservation and the setting up of a new marine management organisation. For the purpose of this report we are concentrating our studies on the improvement of marine nature conservation, with reference to the other factors if and where relevant. Proposed areas of changes in regulations and law There are four main areas where the proposals for the Marine Bill are considering the way forward in terms of the imposition of relevant laws or regulations, with particular relevance to marine nature conservation. The response to the Review of Marine Nature Conservation, Safeguarding Sea Life (2005), identified some key areas that needed to be addressed by government. These included stopping the decline and attacks upon the biodiversity in the environment, in a way that would create recovery of these areas; provide more support for ecosystems and sites for conservation of marine species, especially those most in danger; improve water quality and endeavour to reduce the impact of man’s impact upon it; create an environment where manmade activities and marine conservation requirements could exist in harmony, and to takes steps to increase the general knowledge about the subject and its importance, to the public, industry and all who utilise marine areas for any purpose. In addition to recommendations from a range of stakeholders and interested parties, the government also has a commitment to international directives, including the Natura 2000 report produced by the EU1. and this is recognised within the consultation document. These set a target of 2010 for reversing the decline in biodiversity, setting up protected areas for conserving species and habitats and setting up a nationwide framework of Marine Nature conservation sites, which will include providing specific protection for endangered and threatened species. With the consultation side of the proposed bill due to be completed in September of 2006, this leaves a three-year timescale for these aims to be complied with. In terms of actions the government are considering in regards to the five specific areas identified the government are considering, plus the proposed setting up of a Marine Management Organisation, the following are the salient points: - 1) Marine ecosystem objectives In this area the report relies heavily upon the existing legislation and regimes that are in place, seeing difficulties in too much revision of this area. It provides details of existing objectives as examples. (see below fig 1) Figure 1 Existing ecosystem objectives In conclusion of this part of the report they suggest a range of three options that could be included within the final bill. The first is to give to public and other relevant authorities and organisations, more policy guidance, leave the implementation to those parties. Secondly, changing the existing regimes to make protection and conservation of ecosystems an integral part of planning, licensing and when assessing environmental impact, and the final option provide for the introduction of statutory measures. However, the government admit in this report that there are some instances where, for social or economic reasons, damage is inevitable. It suggests that this is necessary and permissible, providing that the restoration and repair of the site is properly conducted after such use. 2) Marine protected areas Susan Gubbay (1995) argues that all “areas with concentrations of resources are all obvious candidates for protection.” The report suggests that there are already systems in place that allow for setting up marine nature reserves inside a three mile area of the coast and, similarly inland areas that have marine connections, but recognises that it will need to designate addition sites of marine conservation interest. Although some sites will be automatic choices because of their marine conservation and ecosystem relevance, it is seen that in other situations it will be a question of making choices. It identifies two ways in which it can proceed in this area. These are via a direct or indirect method. The direct method would, where the government has the authority, enable the prohibition of activities that are likely to damage or pollute a site. The indirect method would work within existing frameworks, with the addition of being able to seek the protection situations already in existence through current European or international regulations. It is suggested that, at present, there is some difficulty in terms of determining boundaries, as they overlap between land, coastal and see. To enable this area of the marine nature conservation to operate effectively the government is proposing that there needs to be clarification of the existing seaward boundaries for Sites of Special Scientific Interest. As can be seen from the following diagram some options are being considered to address this area. . Figure 2 Option for defining boundaries 3) Species conservation At present species conservation is provided in a number of ways. These include voluntary measures, via codes of conduct agreed between government agencies, conservation agencies and industries involved in this area. Clause 10.83 of the report suggests that species are in danger from either the deliberate targeting or accidental action, in particular it quotes this in terms of fish stocks. In some areas it acknowledges that, due to existing legislation structures, these issues can only be dealt with at international level. An interest point occurs in clause 10.86, where the government states that, whilst threats in territorial waters are recognised, it has not, as yet, identified “similar threats to offshore species.” Options being looked at in this area of the report include the maintaining of existing coverage and extending the existing legislation on species legislation, including a new listing of all the endangered species. Another option being considered in repealing all existing legislation, with the proviso that it was felt that European and other International legislation was sufficiently robust enough to ensure that criminal offences for damages would be severe enough to encourage the benefits of conservation. 4) Control of unlicensed activity Understanding that these is a need to control unlicensed activity in marine areas, the government is considered giving local authorities the power, through the use of bye-laws, to control these events more closely. In view of the environmental impact of leisure activities, there is also consideration being given to whether these regulations should be limited to conservation areas or on a wider scale. In any event they have committed themselves to only introduce such regulations where it is considered appropriate to do so. 5) Enforcement The final part of the consultation document in respect of marine nature conservation outlines the proposals for enforcement procedures. The government has reaffirmed its commitment to use its best efforts to communication to all of the stakeholders in the marine industry, seeking co-operation in an endeavour to maintain the controls. It also recognises that, whilst in inland coastal areas it is not so difficult to regulate and enforce, regulating and enforcing in areas further away from the coast may not be as easy to deal with. It also views the current situation of overlapping responsibility for regulating and enforcing current legislation, between police, local authorities and other bodies, as cumbersome and in some cases inadequate. In an effort to address this, the government intends to work with all the agencies in order to find ways in which the enforcement of the laws and regulations can be more effectively administered and the changes, if any, that may be needed to achieve these ends. 6) Marine Management Organisation The reasoning behind the consideration of setting up a new marine agency is twofold. Firstly, it needs to be discussed whether some of the new functions of the proposed bill would be better carried out in a new organisation, rather than try to integrate them into the framework of existing bodies. Secondly, it had been suggested that the establishment of such a body could help to join together marine management from all the varied bodies that were currently involved. The report further suggests that the geographical element of the MMO would be dependent upon a number of factors, including the scope of the areas of existing regimes, the extent to which other administrations would want it to act of their behalf, and whether they see a need for a separate organisation in territorial waters. Two core functions are seen to possibly be beneficial in such a body. These would be the ability to deliver marine spatial planning and the within the area of licensing. The following (figure 3) outlines where the government considers the key functions of the Marine Management Organisation could be. Figure 3 Potential MMO functions Responses to the consultation documents There has been a significant amount of response to the consultation document. The British Ecological Society has, in general terms welcomed the proposals. However, there are areas where they have added comments they consider will add to the conservation protection issues. This includes being in favour of statutory controls, and also promoting the use of scientific sound equipment to monitor the affect that marine activities have on the ecosystems. In addition it cautions that constant monitoring and updating of regulations should form an integral part of the conservation process. In contrast, the response by the RICS2 was more critical. They viewed the proposed new Marine Management Organisation, whilst laudable, to be lacking in substance, needing more thought in respect of its organisation, structure and funding. Additionally, it is not thought that enough attention has been paid in the document to EU moves in the area of marine conservation. Similarly The Royal Society, in their response dated 15th June 2006 had some comments regarding the document. They suggested that the objectives should be focused upon the desired outcomes of the bill rather that concentrating more on the “framework” as it does. In this response it is also suggested that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support development and suggests that this is an important area to be addressed. The society also is in favour of statutory control in most of the areas being considered for the bill. It voiced its opinion that fish stocks and their depletion was probably one of the most important aspects of conservation to be addressed. A representative boat of the marine leisure industry, the Royal Yachting Association, also have some comments with regard to the proposed bill. One of the major issues for them is the proposed Marine Management Organisation, which they see as potentially adding to a system that is difficult as it stands, although they accept that, providing its activities were clearly defined, it could be useful in certain areas. The basis of their concerns is the possible misunderstanding this could present to the end user of the facilities. In their document the RYA outline four issues on which they would oppose the bill. If it tried to exclude recreational parties from the consultations or introduced a consent procedure that would prove burdensome and unjust for small businesses and volunteer marine organisations. They also object to a national registration scheme and laws that are imprecise or lacking in enforceability. The IMAREST3 has responded with some reservations. In their view it is premature to have issued the document without agreement of all the various administrations; with insufficient environmental detail as to the state of the marine areas; without the costs of implementation having been adequately addressed and without paying attention to the EC legislation. It further warns that conservation should not be the main focus and that all aspects of marine life and usage must be included. They have also criticised the gap between what is known and what is trying to be done, especially in light of the costs involved. In terms of cost, it is their belief that the figures quoted within the consultation document are seriously underestimated, hinting that the real cost could exceed three times the figures used. On the question of threats to marine conservation, this organisation highlighted “fishing, diffused pollution and introduced species” as the main ones, and further stated that these were not adequately controlled by existing agencies. This view is generally supported by ICE4, further commenting that “the ICE does not believe that preservation (i.e. avoiding all change) is either necessary or supportable in this naturally dynamic environment.” Thames Estuary Partnership made the suggestion that the geographical limits outlined within the proposed bill be extended outwards to the continental shelf, irrespective of EU rules, and inwards 500 metres. Their reasoning is that this would give the UK a better bargaining position in Europe and would enable all developments on coastal areas close to the waters, which might impact upon conservation issues, would be brought into the equation. The Wildlife Trust’s (2006) response was generally supportive, with the proviso that the areas covered within the consultation document are included within the final bill, stating that this sort of comprehensive legislation was overdue. Once of the Trust’s main concern is that the bill, to them, appears to be concentrating more on development than conservation. Concern about the possible interpretation of the term “sustainable development” also is highlighted, being seen as a right to continue development projects. Other environmental voluntary organisations have also responded in a similar vein. Most of these organisations have reservations regarding the Marine Management Organisation, stressing that its role needs to be clearly defined from the outset. The Crown Estate, who owns some of the coastal properties being discussed, expressed four main concerns in its response. The potential for obstruction of economic and commercial plans for coastal areas; the forced stopping of developments due to need for additional data required; the possibility that it would limit the Crown Estates “sustainable business,” and the preventing of them carrying out their legal duty to use national assets for the taxpayer as is required of it. The final of the selection of the responses chosen as relevant to this document comes from the SAGB5. They worry about the fact that, in their opinion, the bill seems to have been “over-influenced by the spectacular failure of the common EU fisheries policies and is applied to the finfish fisheries.” Other complaints include the document needs to made more simple and clearer; that a large organisation of the nature of the proposed MMO is unnecessary, and the document fails to effectively attack the issues of pollution from man or agricultural sources, not does it address coastal protection properly. European Commons Fisheries Policy Failure The European Commission has openly admitted that its Common Fisheries policy failed because it, joined with legislation at national level, proved “inadequate to tackling these problems.” (Hambrey & Carlton 1994). Some of the reasons behind this failure were, according to Hambrey and Carlton: - “ 1) Lack of co-ordination with structural and regional policy. 2) Lack of ‘vertical’ industry perspective 3) Emphasis on capital investment and centralisation 4) The changing policy context: a. Subsidiarity b. Peripherality and cohesion c. Sustainability 5) The immediate need to reduce access, and necessarily, to discriminate 6) The importance of relating management strategies to particular stocks or fisheries 7) The continuing conflict between large scale and small scale operators 8) The need for local responsibility and accountability 9) The rapid increase in illegal fishing and marketing 10) The escalating costs of fisheries protection 11) The practical difficulties of enforcing unpopular conservation measures” As a result of this failure, the Commission suggested that these issues would be better served and addressed if the responsibility was decentralised, in other words at national levels. Results Warnings about the condition of the UK marine areas have been sounding for several years. The effects of pollution, commercial and leisure activities have been well documented. The proposed Marine Bill is an attempt to address these issues. In the previous two sections of this report, we have outlined the proposals for this bill and a cross-section of representative responses. Upon examination it can be seen that these are divided into fairly predictable camps. The marine conversationalists, whilst in principle in agreement with the contents of the proposed bill and applaud its aims, have concerns about whether it goes far enough in environmental issues and will be allowed to be effective in these issues. Those with commercial interests have received the document with guarded comments. Although they agree that these issues need to be addressed, they have serious concerns about a) the government has thought the process through thoroughly; b) that there is insufficient data upon which the findings of the report can be accurately based; and c) serious concerns regarding the impact that it will have upon commercial marine activities should it be enacted. The response from the leisure industry appears to have been the most categorical, clearly outlining where and under what conditions they would actually oppose the bill. After the preparation of the draft document, the government consulted approaching eight hundred diverse parties for their responses to its proposals. These include other government departments, non-governmental organisations, commercial organisations, trade and consumer associations, legal and professional organisations, scientific and other research institutes and parties. The full list of consultees is available from the DEFRA website. From the sample of responses that have been reviewed within this report, it would appear that, whilst there is general agreement that the issue of marine nature conservation and its interests needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency, there is also a consensus that a number of issues need to be addressed, although the areas of these appears to dependent upon the responders position and interest in the matter. It is the opinion of the author, having studied and researched all of the information referred to, including the draft proposals for the Marine Bill, that the response to the opening hypothesis of this report, ‘are the provisions to be included within the proposed Maritime Bill of sufficient scope and breadth to provide the necessary protection for the sites of interests to marine nature conservation?’ has to be negative. There are five main reasons behind this response. 1) European Example. A number of the issues highlighted with the failure of the EC Common Fisheries policy are also relevant within to the issues being proposed within the Marine Bill. The failure or otherwise of the bill will depend upon how the government deal with these issues. Certainly they will need to ensure they address the points 1) and 2) (see page 14). Unless all efforts are unified and the various viewpoints harmonised, the measures will not be effective or efficiently implemented. From our study of the consultation documents and the responses it appears that the direction of the legislation is heading towards a centralised body. If this is the case then the Government will not have learned from the EU difficulties and this will endanger the flexibility of the bill in terms of local conditions and requirements. The conflict between the various interested parties, including the governments own particular interests, effective control of fishing stocks, and difficulty in introducing compulsory measures (see 6,7 and 11, page 14), will also be a considerable problem. Judging by the responses researched in the preparation of this paper, this will prove a major difficulty. 2) Co-ordination Co-ordinating a policy that affects, and almost certainly interferes to a lesser or greater extent, with the interest of a number of diverse factions has in the past proved almost impossible in other areas of government policies. It is our opinion, based upon the content of the proposed content of the bill, that the government will seek the normal political “middle of the road” approach in an effort to at least satisfy some of the demands. In human terms, this will, although not satisfy every faction, leave each with the impression that they have achieved partial success for their cause. The other area of co-ordination that is also important is that which attracts to the various bodies, governmental or otherwise, in terms of implementation, management and enforcing of the new regulations. Historically, in other areas of government policy, such co-ordination has proved difficult to achieve. To achieve the correct level of co-ordination in this particular instance, it is important that the government the right organisational structure, and that the flow-path for information, management and responsibility, is sufficiently clear and defined as to be effective. 3) Demarcation The question regarding the geographical boundaries of the areas that the bill will be applied to is also of concern. Firstly there is the problem that it may be seen by some that the situation outside of these zones does not have to be so closely monitored, therefore the likelihood of environment damage may increase and spread because of lack of care. Secondly, there is the problem that marine pollution is not static, neither is the positioning of marine life. Thus pollution can enter the designated areas without the ability of prevention. In addition, this problem also arises in terms of events in international waters. The bill will only be partially effective unless a) the areas not geographically chosen have some significant degree of control implemented and, that international efforts are co-ordinated to ensure that non-territorial waters are similarly governed. 4) Financial The response from IMAREST (see page 12), mentioned the inadequacies of the financial costing system that has been used within the consultation document. If one takes their observations on the matter, namely that it would need at least fifty people to maintain the operation of the proposed Marine Management Organisation, by using a conservative method of assuming every employee was on the minimum wage, and allowing for employers costs this figure would be at least £500,000. Added to this would be the establishment, administration and other costs. Again taking a conservation view, if one said that employee costs were 40% of total costs, the annual costs of running this organisation would be £1,250,000, over six times the government’s calculation. If the government sets a target as outlined within the report and is determined to stay within that budget figure, the cost will prohibit the bill from being adequate, as there would be limited resources to be able to police and enforces its policies. However, it is important to bear in mind the cost of environment damage when addressing the overall cost of this programme. It is not inconceivable that the savings achieved by savings from reduced environment damage, in particular cleaning up of pollution, could more than compensate for the additional cost of running the conservation programme. 5) Demands The growth of population, globalisation, together with the increasing commercial and leisure demands that are being made on the marine environment, is another area that will affect the ability of the Marine bill to deliver effective safeguards for marine nature conservation interests. The government has a duty to provide for its citizens; the commercial organisations have a duty to achieve continued success to its business stakeholders, achievable only by delivering goods and service to its consumers; citizens demand the right of access and enjoyment of the environment within which they live. Citizens also have the right to enjoy employment and a certain living standard. In the light of these requirements, we would suggest that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the government, bearing in mind its diverse responsibilities in these areas, to produce a marine bill that will deliver successfully on its promises, at least a delivery to the level and extent that many conservation and scientific organisations believe that it should. Discussion Although some, especially those within the leisure industry, would argue that some UK marine areas have seen improvements in conditions, indicating rewards such as clean beaches as evidence, as Sophie Butler (2005) pointed out in her newspaper article, “Britains beaches are not as clean or well-managed as we might assume,” revealing that the standards of judging allow for a level of pollution. Similarly, despite the many individual efforts being made in marine conservation it stills falls short of requirements. As many of those who responded have pointed out, there is a need for an increased level of data collection in order to judge both the extent of the damage being done, the rate of increase of that damage, and the exact levels of conversation at which recovery might be achievable. At present the lack of available data is contributing to the differences of opinions that exist between the various factions who are involved with the marine environment, allowing all sides to question the validity and effectiveness of the governments efforts. This suggests that there needs to be a significant capital investment in scientific research and collection of credible data as a matter of some urgency. It is possible that such research may show that there is a level at which the social, economic and commercial need, together with the conservation requirements, can be harmonised to produce an effective conservation programme that will satisfy all. Another potential danger that also needs to form part of this debate is that, if an effective programme is not achieved at sites of marine nature conservation interest, could the resultant lack of action impact upon other area of the environment. Conclusion “Damage to the once pristine habitats of the deep oceans by pollution, litter and over fishing is running out of control, the United Nations warned yesterday. In a report that indicates that time is running out to save them, the UN said humankinds exploitation of the deep seas and oceans was "rapidly passing the point of no return". (David Adam 2006) Warnings similar to that quoted above have become almost commonplace. As has been seen in this report, the difficulty is how to get a consensus of opinion and desires to address the issues. The damage to marine life reported later in that same article shows the extent to which the conservation issues are being disregarded. “(2005) 85 million tonnes of wild fish were pulled from the global oceans, 100 million sharks and related species were butchered for their fins, some 250,000 turtles became tangled in fishing gear, and 300,000 seabirds, including 100,000 albatrosses, were killed by illegal longline fishing.”(David Adam 2006) To address these issues, there is an immediate need for a comprehensive framework of efficient controls, marine management and regulatory legislation to reverse the trend of marine environmental damage. In its present format, and without sufficient data analysis, it has been proven that the proposed Marine bill falls short of satisfying this need. References Adam, David (2006) Time running out to curb effects of deep sea pollution, warns UN. The Guardian Article (2005) UK seas need proper planning. World Wildlife Fund. Retrieved 20 August 2006 from the World Wide Web http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000002118.asp Black, Richard (2006) London’s whale: Conservation Aid? BBC News Butler, Sophie (2005) Advice from the expert. The Telegraph Cleghorn, Damian (2006) RICS response to the Environmental Committee on the Proposed Marine Bill. Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Cleveland-Peck, Perry (2005) Focus Report: Travel West. The Times Cooper, Bill & Beiboer, F (2002). Potential Effects of Offshore Wind Developments on Coastal Processes. ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd Retrieved 19 August 2006 from the World Wide Web from http://www.abpmer.net/uploads/marketing/site/w3500596.pdf Dusic, Nick. Response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affair’s consultation on the Marine Bill. British Ecological Society. Putney. UK Edwards, Joan (2006) The Wildlife Trust Reponse. The Wildlife Trusts, Newark. Gubbay, Susan (1995) Marine Protected Areas: Principles and Techniques for Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers Hambrey, John and Carlton, Crick (1994) Decentralisation in Fisheries Management: Feasibility and Management. Nautilus Consultants UK. Peebles. UK Hastings, Rob (2006) The Crown Estate Response to a Marine Bill Consultation. The Crown Estate. London Hunt, Dr Peter (2006) Response to the Marine Bill Consultation. The Shellfish Association of Great Britain. Jay Adams and agencies (2004) Commission calls for 30% cut in UK fishing. The Guardian Laffoley, D. d’A and Bines, T. (2000) Protection and management of nationally important marine and species. Prepared by English Nature. Peterborough UK. Marine Bill (March 2006). A consultation Document. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Natura 2000 (2006) Developing marine SAC management plans in the UK. Retrieved 21 August 2006 from the World Wide Web http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/nature_conservation/natura_2000_network/managing_natura_2000/exchange_of_good_practice/marine/03case_sacs.html Owen, Jonathan and Lean, Geoffrey (2006) Royal Navy sonar blamed for deaths of four whales. The Independent Report (2001) The Future of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The Royal Society Response from Wildlife and Countryside Link. (2006) Wildlife and Countryside Link Response to the DEFRA Marine Bill Consultation. (2006) The Institution of Civil Engineers. London. UK Response to the UK Marine Bill consultation document. (2006) The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology’s Safeguarding Sea Life (2005). The joint response to the Review of Marine Nature Conservation . Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Strong, W. Alan (2006) Sustainable Development Policy Directory. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. UK. Thames Estuary Partnership Response to Consultation on the Marine Bill. (2006) Thames Estuary Partnership. London. Tomson, Dr S. (2005) Opportunities and concerns as seen by the RYA. Royal Yachting Association, Southampton. UK Vidal, John and Murray, Louise (2005) Death traps destroying Atlantic Sharks. The Guardian Read More